bush country Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 What I was trying to say was - whilst you believe that there are certain 'accepted tenants' that define Christianity, and given that you don't believe the substance of these tenants ... it would be dishonest of you to identify with the church but I'm querying whether this can be said to be true of liberal Christians (and I wasn't sure whether you were saying it was or it wasn't in your view) The tenants that you believe to be the 'accepted tenants that define Christianity' - are not accepted as the 'tenants that define Christianity' by liberal Christians (as I understand liberal Christianity) - therefore they (liberal christians) are not being dishonest when they identify themselves as Christians. If you do think they are being dishonest - I'd be interested in hearing a little more of your rationale. Sorry Alice, I have read the above three times and I can't understand what you are saying. Please rephrase. I'll try. In order to do so I'll say what I think you're saying but please bear in mind that I'm not sure I'm hearing you correctly. I think you are saying that you believe ... there is an accepted definition of Christianity that has been around for as long as Christianity has been in existence that requires literal belief in various events/doctrines. Therefore as you do not have a literal belief in these doctrines it would be dishonest for you to identify with a Church that does. It seems you are saying that everyone accepts this definition of Christianity, therefore liberal Christians, in not believing in the literal truth of these events/doctrines are also being dishonest. I am saying - my understanding is that liberal Christians (and many secular historians) do not view history in this way. They do not accept that for as long as Christianity has been around there has been an 'accepted' definition of Chrisitianity that requires literal belief in various events/doctrines - therefore they are not being dishonest when they identify themselves as part of the Christian Church. Does that help any? To see if I understand what you are saying: Profess literal (events & doctrine) + believe literal = honest Profess literal + do not believe literal = dishonest Do not profess literal + do not believe literal = honest In other words, one should actually believe what they profess. IMO, if one is a member of a denomination that professes a creed (Nicene or Apostles) they are being dishonest if they do not believe in what the words of the creed say. My understanding of the OP of the CINO thread is he wonders why people - Christians - profess things that they clearly do not believe. When I was a christian I wondered that too. Now as an ex-c, I still wonder, but from the other side of the fence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alice Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 So effectively they take the orthodox history of the church as dishonst and pick and choose which bits are true to suit them... Looking at the actual history, compared to the orthodox, there is virtually nothing true... the whole thing then tends toward C.S. Bloody Lewis' "One True Myth" crap... Thus, in terms of Liberal Christianity, I have the following questions that I may place over on the other thread where there is the attempted cluster fuck of me simply because I don't think that there are shades of grey when spreading toxic thought... 1) What is the point of Christianity? 2) Is it a religion or is it a philosophy? 3) What were we 'saved' from? 4) Why was the crucifixion needed? 5) Was there a physical resurrection? If it doesn't matter, why not? 6) Who was sacrificed to whom and why? 7) It the trinity a required doctrine? If it's a false one, why tolerate it in service? OK, it's not a clean list since there are some a priori assumptions on my part about the nature of the beast... What is the 'attempted cluster fuck'? - two people disagreeing with you? - is this an example of why man flu is so serious? I think the disagreement lay mainly with your lack of compassion for the young girl in the story - of course, we may have been guilty of a bit of literalist thinking in our response - perhaps you were simply using hyperbole to express just how repugnant you find fundamentalism and we missed the point, or maybe you really don't care about other people. I mean you didn't even succumb to fundamentalism despite considerable pressures placed on you as a child to do so - and if you managed this, then I guess you could conclude that only someone pretty dumb would ever fall for it so - yep, maybe your approach is justified and fundamentalists do all deserve to be wiped out .... for the sake of the human race ... If we followed that rationale you'd be pretty much talking to your own echo around these parts because most of us HAVE succumbed - we have been infected ... but we survived and are testament to the fact that fundamentalism is a curable disease. I will trail your questions to the other thread... Who started this ping pong style conversation that's what I want to know!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 A man knows that NOBODY has ever been that ill and lived. However, O_M seems to be going for my character, which is pretty much not debating the point, and thus at least an attempted black jacking, if not exactly a cluster fuck... I'm callous and angry... which contributes what, precisely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 I think you are saying that you believe ... there is an accepted definition of Christianity that has been around for as long as Christianity has been in existence that requires literal belief in various events/doctrines. Therefore as you do not have a literal belief in these doctrines it would be dishonest for you to identify with a Church that does. Yes - to an extent-- I wouldn't say "as long as Christianity has been in existence." (no one knows what the earliest churches were like) But in churches that NOW have a creed, 39 Articles, Westminster Confession, etc. centuries old, yes, if I don't believe in those things stated in these documents, if I attended a chruch that did profess these things, there is a certain amount of dishonesty and hypocrisy involved to attend such a church and join it as a member. It seems you are saying that everyone accepts this definition of Christianity, therefore liberal Christians, in not believing in the literal truth of these events/doctrines are also being dishonest. No. I'm not saying everyone accepts one orthodox definition of Christianity. That is plainly not the case. No. If they want to have their own understanding of xianity, fine. I am saying it doesn't correspond to the creeds and statements listed above in the plain, accepted meaning of the words used in those creeds and statements. Anyone is free to make up any religion they like, but I believe it would be dishonest to drag such a thing into a chruch that historically subscribed to creeds and statements. I am saying - my understanding is that liberal Christians (and many secular historians) do not view history in this way. They do not accept that for as long as Christianity has been around there has been an 'accepted' definition of Chrisitianity that requires literal belief in various events/doctrines - therefore they are not being dishonest when they identify themselves as part of the Christian Church. It doesn't matter. People in everyday life (not secular historians) don't think this way. Their common understanding of what a Christian is does not encompass the findings of historians and scholars (at least not where I live). If you say "I am a Christian" it still carries a certain common understanding. Right or wrong, its a fact that the extreme liberal xian does not conform to that understanding. Unless they bother to explain their unique understanding, it is deceptive to a degree. That's all I am saying. Does that help any? Yes, it helped a lot. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 To see if I understand what you are saying: Profess literal (events & doctrine) + believe literal = honest Profess literal + do not believe literal = dishonest Do not profess literal + do not believe literal = honest In other words, one should actually believe what they profess. IMO, if one is a member of a denomination that professes a creed (Nicene or Apostles) they are being dishonest if they do not believe in what the words of the creed say. My understanding of the OP of the CINO thread is he wonders why people - Christians - profess things that they clearly do not believe. When I was a christian I wondered that too. Now as an ex-c, I still wonder, but from the other side of the fence. Thanks bush country- that is pretty much what I have been trying to get across. Believe or subscribe to what their various churches consider to be "Christianity." Clearly, I am free to make up any sort of god myself and call him "Jesus", but I wouldn't join a church that had a different definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 Indeed... it's simply hypocrisy... and this is admirable how? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alice Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Profess literal (events & doctrine) + believe literal = honest Profess literal + do not believe literal = dishonest Do not profess literal + do not believe literal = honest You are the god of brevity - I like it - that's it exactly! A man knows that NOBODY has ever been that ill and lived. However, O_M seems to be going for my character, which is pretty much not debating the point, and thus at least an attempted black jacking, if not exactly a cluster fuck... I'm callous and angry... which contributes what, precisely? Gramps, I've not ever percieved you as angry before today - but I did begin to wonder ... I would hope that challenging each other in area's we see attitudes and behaviour that maybe harmful to others potentially leads to enlightenment. After all - to remain silent when we see something we think is detrimental to humankind enables it to continue. In pointing out that I thought your response to the young girl was akin to that of a christian fundamentalist I was contributing with the intent of (1) hoping you'd reconsider and change your view (2) hoping you'd enlighten me as to how your attitude was preferrable to mine (3) neither of us altering our views but each of us understanding a little more where the other was coming from. I started to think that maybe you were angry as an explanation for just how callous you were presenting. I began to wonder just what your refusal to believe in Christianity had cost you as a child. I guess it was reflecting on your post that suggested christians had left you bitter and were to blame. I am saying it doesn't correspond to the creeds and statements listed above in the plain, accepted meaning of the words used in those creeds and statements. Anyone is free to make up any religion they like, but I believe it would be dishonest to drag such a thing into a chruch that historically subscribed to creeds and statements. *snip* People in everyday life (not secular historians) don't think this way. Their common understanding of what a Christian is does not encompass the findings of historians and scholars (at least not where I live). If you say "I am a Christian" it still carries a certain common understanding. Right or wrong, its a fact that the extreme liberal xian does not conform to that understanding. Unless they bother to explain their unique understanding, it is deceptive to a degree. That's all I am saying. Thanks for your patience Deva, and I think I understand what you are saying. I think there may be some differences in perspective here down to differences in the UK/USA and we do not have the problem with fundamentalism that you do - so literalists are never seen as 'mainstream' here. I'm still not sure that I see deception (although I think I can see how it could be percieved as such) When asked liberal christians explain their perspective on history and the fact that the creeds were written before the modern age in a time when people did not expect religious explanations to be understood literally - don't they? I guess they do not 'preach' their position in the same way as fundamentalists do. Is this really deceptive - or is this a case of people in every day life making assumptions? A tricky one for liberal believers - as they don't like pushing their beliefs onto others - it sounds like a hard balance to achieve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 I think there may be some differences in perspective here down to differences in the UK/USA and we do not have the problem with fundamentalism that you do - so literalists are never seen as 'mainstream' here. Admitted. Probably there are some communication problems with that. I'm still not sure that I see deception (although I think I can see how it could be percieved as such) When asked liberal christians explain their perspective on history and the fact that the creeds were written before the modern age in a time when people did not expect religious explanations to be understood literally - don't they? I guess they do not 'preach' their position in the same way as fundamentalists do. Is this really deceptive - or is this a case of people in every day life making assumptions? I would say there is certainly less hypocrisy and dishonesty on the part of people who openly profess their disbelief in tenants of their church. I will go so far as to say that. Otherwise, I just don't understand how people go on attending church year after year and keeping silent, not believing hardly a word of it. Just seems dishonest to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FirstInTheDance Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 I would say there is certainly less hypocrisy and dishonesty on the part of people who openly profess their disbelief in tenants of their church. I will go so far as to say that. Otherwise, I just don't understand how people go on attending church year after year and keeping silent, not believing hardly a word of it. Just seems dishonest to me. I completely agree with this. I think it is dishonest to silently go along with something you don't agree with - but Open_Minded engages in interfaith work and teaches fundies to be less obnoxious. This seems to indicate that she does not go about silently, pretending. In fact, her church seems well aware of, and ok with what she believes. Besides, not all people who identify with Christ belong to a church. Technically, "Christian" just means that one is a follower of Christ. That gives people a whole lot of latitude. A Mennonite is not a Catholic is not a Pentacostal is not a Universalist etc. These few sects display some huge differences in doctorine. Don't get me wrong - I'm NOT defending Christianity. I don't personally find it to be anything but harmful - at least in the ways I've heard it taught in the past. I didn't realize that some Christians, like Open_Minded, see it as more mythology than history. I thought all Christians had to accept at least the crucifixion and resurrection as fact. If you see it as symbolic, however, and realize it is mythology - well, who knows. Maybe some people find value in that. That's cool with me. It's the people who take it literally who are the problem in society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Hey, a peanut gallery I can post in! (Pulls out three foam hands and waves them wildly for the battle for battle's sake!) For some reason, I missed all this. Been buzy with work mostly. Who won?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts