Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Are The Religious Moderates Better Than The Fundies?


R. S. Martin

Recommended Posts

What the fuck is a member of the debate doing on here? Mods???? Clean up in Aisle 3, dummy and baby food spat all over the shop! Histrionics at their finest

 

Hey - I think these two threads are so similar I'm confused as to what is supposed to be where .... we've pretty much as a group been participating in both threads ... Gramps - O_Mis perfectly entitiled to be in this one but O_M, I think you have cut from one thread and answered in the other which may not be in the spirit of the set up (and is a real drawback for debaters who participate in the closed threads)

 

and damned right I'm fucking callous... I learned it from Christ followers... I suggest you deal with a "fruit of the spirit" that sprouted in me... The weed of Christ bears bitter fruit...

 

But Gramps I call you on this. 'you learnt it from Christ followers' ... I didn't take you for one who'd play the blame game. Its your deal Gramps - no one elses.

 

You've decided because you've decided you've decided.

 

Very true... I decided based on the evidence I have seen. I've had a lot more 'Christian' charity from Hindus than anyone who would claim the name... and seen more thorough going fucking ups from people who claim the 'Christian' tag to others... I've spent too many late nights mopping up that sort of mess to take kindly to anyone espousing the idea that any idea of Christ is a good one... I've said it before, if it keeps you from killing other people, off drink or drugs, or just gets you out of bed, showered, dressed and facing the day, I'm all for it... but I am not going to agree than one version is 'less evil' than another, just based on the popularity of a protagonist. The real politic is that Liberal Christianity gets people hooked and moving on to harder stuff same way it gets getting folks off the harder stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 211
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Grandpa Harley

    43

  • Open_Minded

    22

  • Alice

    21

  • Antlerman

    17

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

You noticed that I was upset by your post - the reason I am upset is because you were making assumptions.... Notice the text in red. Who is the WE in "we think ALL forms of xianity are poison"? Because if the "we" is every ex-christian - that is a MAJOR assumption.
OK - change "we" to "I" Happy now?
Yes... very ... thank you...

 

And the statement "ALL forms of xianity are poison"?????? How bias is that statement??????? ALL forms of Christianity????

 

That covers every Christian who has ever lived or who will ever live .... that's a pretty wild statement even on the most objective level.

Yeah it may be a wild statement, but that's the way I feel, I'm entitled to say it and I stand by it, whether you or anyone else likes it or not.

 

Yep.... you're entitled to feel the way you feel and say anything you want to say.... I agree with that. And you may stand by your feelings .... just don't be surprised when someone objectively points out how far out in left field the statement is.....

 

DevaLight .... I'm not trying to pick a fight. But, so much of what I see in fundamentalism (and the reason I was willing to work so hard to get my daughter's friend out of fundamentalism) is the rigidity with which they view the world. It's either all black or all white with them. Statements like "ALL forms of Christianity" are black and white statements. They are statements that refuse to view people as humans - instead - statements like that villify and create strife no matter if a fundy says them or an ex-Christian. :shrug:

 

As I said.... I'm not trying to pick a fight ..... just don't lump me into a group anymore than you would want me to lump you into a group without getting to know you as a person.... :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be stepping onto a land mine here, but I'd like to ring in if I could:

 

Going back to the article: I don't think liberal/moderate followers of any religion are enablers by default, but I do they enable fundamentalism whenever they don't vocally denouce the works of fundamenatalism in their culture.

 

Again, in my opinion, it is when the fundamentalists speak for the voice of all a particular relgion and those that disagree do nothing that they are enabling. True, Fundamentalists wouldn't be able to say "80% of the country is christian so we're right" if they didn't have much larger moderate/liberal base, but I think the bigger issue is the moderates/liberals given their consent to these actions through their silence.

 

Personally, I don't understand or agree with the liberal christian position, but I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. People believe what they want to believe, I can only provide information and opinion as to my own beliefs.

 

IMOHO,

:thanks:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically I have to start out be forging people for being Christian at the outset. To me, Liberal Chrsitianity cannot be simply viewed of as the methadone of hard liners, since it also acts as a gateway drug.

 

and apropos the girl, who is O_M to ajudge her 'worth saving'? 'I know the girl' isn't really a saving grace, since they're all in the same cult... and her parents (and thus her grandparents one level removed) had clearly done a sterling job of indoctrination...

 

So, how does one pick the lesser evil?

 

I have read your above sentence with 'forging' as a typo for 'forgiving' (please forge me if I'm wrong ;) )

 

and I say - you don't have to ... but I'd encourage you to consider the options if you do and if you don't.

 

Earlier in this conversation I acknowledged that there was a possibility that liberal Chrisitianity could be both a salve and an added sting to fundamentalism, although pointing out that in my experience I hadn't often seen anyone move from liberalism to fundamentalism but I'd seen plenty go the other way.

 

I've been giving this some thought over the past couple of hours - those few who had become fundamentalist from a liberal background were adolescents. The changes that take place in the brain during this time often result in a particular kind of black and white thinking (not in all adolescents I hasten to add)

 

This remineded me of a key thing I've been ovelooking in this discussion - Liberalism isn't watered down fundamentalism - it is an entirley different way of viewing the world, with a different perspective on history, and a very different approach to humankind.

 

The moderating effect on fundamentalism is a side effect, its not a case of watering things down, its a case of actually opening up the closed way in which the fundamentalist mind works in the context of loving kindness for all mankind.

 

Grandpa Harley - inbetween these posts, I'd actually gone back to one of mine and strengthened my comments about your approach to the young girl. Uck. Love and empathy say's she could be saved Gramps. Your comments do sound like those of the fundamentalist who believes that because you don't share his belief system you are rightfully headed for hell, in their own version of 'adapt and die'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Silence by default is enabling by default...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically I have to start out be forging people for being Christian at the outset. To me, Liberal Chrsitianity cannot be simply viewed of as the methadone of hard liners, since it also acts as a gateway drug.

 

and apropos the girl, who is O_M to ajudge her 'worth saving'? 'I know the girl' isn't really a saving grace, since they're all in the same cult... and her parents (and thus her grandparents one level removed) had clearly done a sterling job of indoctrination...

 

So, how does one pick the lesser evil?

 

I have read your above sentence with 'forging' as a typo for 'forgiving' (please forge me if I'm wrong ;)

 

and I say - you don't have to ... but I'd encourage you to consider the options if you do and if you don't.

 

Earlier in this conversation I acknowledged that there was a possibility that liberal Chrisitianity could be both a salve and an added sting to fundamentalism, although pointing out that in my expereince I hadn't often seen anyone move from liberalism to fundamentalism but I'd seen plenty go the other way.

 

I've been giving this some thought over the past couple of hours - those few who had become fundamentalist from a liberal background were adolescents.

 

Liberalism isn't watered down fundamentalism - it is an entirley different way of viewing the world, with a different perspective on history, and a very different approach to humankind.

 

The moderating effect on fundamentalism is a side effect, its not a case of watering things down, its a case of actually opening up the closed way in which the fundamentalist mind works in the context of loving kindness for all mankind.

 

In between these posts, I'd actually gone back to one of my and strengthened my comments about your approach to the young girl. Love and empathy say's she could be saved Gramps. Your comments do sound like those of the fundamentalist who beleives that because you don't share his belief system you are rightfully headed for hell, in their own version of 'adapt and die'.

Red - I said 'Gateway drug'. How many came back?

 

Otherwise, I'd broardly agree with the opinions, but not necessarily the conclusions...

 

As to the girl. IF her 'beliefs' resulted in that behaviour there is no benefit to any one. IF she's capable of NOT behaving like a sociopath, then I'd say there was some hope, but largely it's too damned common to presume it's going to be changed by kind words... thus 'hell' seems a reasonable option. Taking the assertion I am a fundy and running with it, the girl is at least the third generation of that mindset, and what have they really brought to the party other than some pious monsters who wants to see people damned. Painting people who stop behaving as humans as 'human' is a dangerous past time... Remember Chamberlain? Appeasement doesn't really work if the creature is that far gone... and a third gen is a long way from 'hope' IME. As a question, why is the O_M homily greeted with more amiability and acceptance than Buddy Ferris' homilies of prayer and kind words with the masses? As I say... it's a popularity contest, not a reasoned response...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Red - I said 'Gateway drug'. How many came back?

 

Otherwise, I'd broardly agree with the opinions, but not necessarily the conclusions...

 

As to the girl. IF her 'beliefs' resulted in that behaviour there is no benefit to any one. IF she's capable of NOT behaving like a sociopath, then I'd say there was some hope, but largely it's too damned common to presume it's going to be changed by kind words... thus 'hell' seems a reasonable option. Taking the assertion I am a fundy and running with it, the girl is at least the third generation of that mindset, and what have they really brought to the party other than some pious monsters who wants to see people damned. Painting people who stop behaving as humans as 'human' is a dangerous past time... Remember Chamberlain? Appeasement doesn't really work if the creature is that far gone... and a third gen is a long way from 'hope' IME. As a question, why is the O_M homily greeted with more amiability and acceptance than Buddy Ferris' homilies of prayer and kind words with the masses? As I say... it's a popularity contest, not a reasoned response...

 

 

Because Buddy was about exclusion and O_M is about inclusion. Because Buddy spoke standing in a context of predjudice and fear and O_M speaks standing in the context of loving kindness. Because O_M answers the questions put to her thoughtfully and deeply and is not afraid to reconsider whilst Buddy was avoident and defensive ... I could go on. (She happens to be a rabble rousing heretic as well!)

 

Humans are complex - people can utilise fundamentalist thinking in some areas of their lives and not in others. Fundamentalism is for the most part - the result of nurture not nature and responds to education. (I accept that in the past there was probably a genetic basis to black and white thinking ... but fortunatley we have begun to evolve beyond this)

 

I still think black and white white sometimes - a work in progress... I'm still being 'saved' from my fundamentalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you may stand by your feelings .... just don't be surprised when someone objectively points out how far out in left field the statement is.....

 

Doesn't bother me. Have at it. Been through a lot worse in the last 49 years.

 

As I said.... I'm not trying to pick a fight ..... just don't lump me into a group anymore than you would want me to lump you into a group without getting to know you as a person.... :shrug:

 

I don't know you. It's nothing personal. I am talking about the religious system called "Christianity."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said.... I'm not trying to pick a fight ..... just don't lump me into a group anymore than you would want me to lump you into a group without getting to know you as a person.... :shrug:
I don't know you. It's nothing personal. I am talking about the religious system called "Christianity."

 

Thank you for saying, "It's nothing personal". :)

 

But don't you see - "the religious system called 'Christianity'" - is a reflection of human beings. And that religious system is every bit - (no - even more diverse) - than this board called "ex-christian.net".

 

It wouldn't be right for me to assume that since this board is made up of a majority of Atheists that ALL ex-christians are atheists. The same kind of respect is all that I am asking in regards to Christianity, and America, and every other group of human beings. What we see on the surface of a subset of any particular group does not MAKE the group. :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking the assertion I am a fundy and running with it, the girl is at least the third generation of that mindset, and what have they really brought to the party other than some pious monsters who wants to see people damned. Painting people who stop behaving as humans as 'human' is a dangerous past time... Remember Chamberlain? Appeasement doesn't really work if the creature is that far gone... and a third gen is a long way from 'hope' IME. As a question, why is the O_M homily greeted with more amiability and acceptance than Buddy Ferris' homilies of prayer and kind words with the masses? As I say... it's a popularity contest, not a reasoned response...
Well - you certainly know how to run with the fundy mindset - it seems to come quite naturally to you....

 

But, let's explore this shall we....

 

"the girl is at least third generation of that mindset"... where do you get that? First off - her grandmother is a more conservative member of my church - which is mainstream. I've been a friend of that girl's grandmother for 17 years - that woman wouldn't condemn a fly to hell. Like many mainstream Christians, they may have been taught it - but they don't believe it, and she certainly didn't teach it to her son (the girl's father). The girl's parents take her to fundy church because of the mother - I've read enough posts on this board to know how many "mixed" marriages there are. I certainly hope that father talked to the daughter. I've no way of knowing - he may have remained silent for "the sake of his marriage". But, I do know one thing - he didn't learn that shit from his mother.

 

Secondly - the grandmother - and my friend - welcomes my outspoken personality in our church. She told me in this conversation that when she was my age she worked for inter-denominational dialog. She sees my work in interfaith dialog as the next logical step. I wish she had told this to me about 10 years ago .... but what the heck ... so it takes her grand-daughter's situation to initiate the conversation - where's the surprise in that I live in a community of Norwegian/German decent where we don't compliment anyone on anything until we're planting them in the ground. :)

 

But, once again Grandpa Harley - you'd have to actually get to know a person first to understand these things. And that takes time and open mind (no pun intended).... (sigh)

 

_____________________--

 

Oh... and about your comment.....

 

Silence by default is enabling by default...
Not every liberal Christian is silent. I - for one - am annoyingly outspoken within my own congregation. I can also be quite outspoken in public (when it is appropriate and called for within the context of the interfaith work I do).

 

But.... there are many other Christians who speak out as well.

 

Clergy for Choice:

http://rcrc.org/programs/clergyforchoice.cfm

 

Clergy for Fairness:

http://www.clergyforfairness.org/

 

Clergy Letter Project

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_letter_project

 

I'm not saying every mainstream &/or liberal Christian is as outspoken as I am or like the examples above. I can see where people would get upset with silence in the face of callous behavior. I suppose that's why I'm calling you out on the carpet - your attitude towards that young girl is callous - and you can blame it on Christians in your life if it makes it easier on you - but the reality is that anger is spewing out of every word you write and at some point taking ownership of that anger is your problem - and until you do - your no better than an angry, judgmental fundy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But don't you see - "the religious system called 'Christianity'" - is a reflection of human beings. And that religious system is every bit - (no - even more diverse) - than this board called "ex-christian.net".

 

Of course it is. It is a human language game. So what? Diverse forms of poision - some may be more dilute than others.

 

It wouldn't be right for me to assume that since this board is made up of a majority of Atheists that ALL ex-christians are atheists. The same kind of respect is all that I am asking in regards to Christianity, and America, and every other group of human beings. What we see on the surface of a subset of any particular group does not MAKE the group. :shrug:

 

As a general principal I can see it. Yes -"What we see on the surface of a subset of any particular group does not MAKE the group."

 

I think its wrong to draw a comparison to ex-christians. Again, I am talking about the religious system Christianity. Christians all believe in someone known as "Jesus Christ", either literally or metaphorically. Am I wrong? Ex-Christians would not be of that belief. Ex-Christians would be a large group of persons of very diverse beliefs - the only commonality would be non- Christian. Why would I make an assumption that all ex-christians are atheists?

 

Maybe I am just not following your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Questions...

 

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snipped>

 

When the original version of your post arrives in my inbox I'll respond... :fdevil:

 

but ATM I'm not hearing much outside of the self aggrandising of Buddy Ferris, just from someone more popular... the rhetoric is slightly different but the base content and the apologetics are pretty much the same... but thank you for pointing out my short comings... you have pretty accurate assessment of them, in fact I quite agree. but you do misjudge me being 'angry'... my blood pressure hasn't risen... the benefits of a borderline psychopathic personality. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snipped>

 

When the original version of your post arrives in my inbox I'll respond... :fdevil:

Well .... last I checked you weren't my boss nor a mod...

 

If you don't want to discuss the post (as it stands) in this public thread - that's fine by me.

 

but thank you for pointing out my short comings... you have pretty accurate assessment of them, in fact I quite agree. but you do misjudge me being 'angry'... my blood pressure hasn't risen... the benefits of a borderline psychopathic personality. :)
I used to find your wit charming - but mixed with a lack of compassion for fellow human beings it's lost all it's charm.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DevaLight

 

As a general principal I can see it. Yes -"What we see on the surface of a subset of any particular group does not MAKE the group."

 

I think its wrong to draw a comparison to ex-christians. Again, I am talking about the religious system Christianity. Christians all believe in someone known as "Jesus Christ", either literally or metaphorically. Am I wrong? Ex-Christians would not be of that belief. Ex-Christians would be a large group of persons of very diverse beliefs - the only commonality would be non- Christian. Why would I make an assumption that all ex-christians are atheists?

 

Maybe I am just not following your point.

 

What religious system would that be Deva? I'm serious here - about the only thing two Christians would agree on is the statement - "I am a follower of Christ".

 

I know one man who self-identifies as Christian and believes the Jesus did not actually live. He would say he is a "follower of Christ" in the sense that he believes in a "Christ Consciousness" or an "Inner Christ".

 

  • There is no central agreement on what the cross means.
  • Not every Christian believes in the virgin birth.
  • Not every Christian reads the Bible literally
  • Not every Christian believes Jesus was divine
  • Not every Christian believes there is a hell.
  • There is disagreement amongst Christians about what the Trinity is.

 

So - given that reality - as Mr. Grinch pointed out there are upwards of 35,000 different varieties (expressions) of Christianity. So - what exactly is this "religious system" that is so "poisonous"? :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snipped>

 

When the original version of your post arrives in my inbox I'll respond... :fdevil:

Well .... last I checked you weren't my boss nor a mod...

 

If you don't want to discuss the post (as it stands) in this public thread - that's fine by me.

 

but thank you for pointing out my short comings... you have pretty accurate assessment of them, in fact I quite agree. but you do misjudge me being 'angry'... my blood pressure hasn't risen... the benefits of a borderline psychopathic personality. :)
I used to find your wit charming - but mixed with a lack of compassion for fellow human beings it's lost all it's charm.

and I don't regard you as my Jiminy Cricket... and since we're discussing personality shortcomings, care for me to start in on your pompous, prissy arse?

 

As I once pointed out to Buddy Ferris - Fer-UK you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DevaLight

 

As a general principal I can see it. Yes -"What we see on the surface of a subset of any particular group does not MAKE the group."

 

I think its wrong to draw a comparison to ex-christians. Again, I am talking about the religious system Christianity. Christians all believe in someone known as "Jesus Christ", either literally or metaphorically. Am I wrong? Ex-Christians would not be of that belief. Ex-Christians would be a large group of persons of very diverse beliefs - the only commonality would be non- Christian. Why would I make an assumption that all ex-christians are atheists?

 

Maybe I am just not following your point.

 

What religious system would that be Deva? I'm serious here - about the only thing two Christians would agree on is the statement - "I am a follower of Christ".

 

I know one man who self-identifies as Christian and believes the Jesus did not actually live. He would say he is a "follower of Christ" in the sense that he believes in a "Christ Consciousness" or an "Inner Christ".

 

  • There is no central agreement on what the cross means.
  • Not every Christian believes in the virgin birth.
  • Not every Christian reads the Bible literally
  • Not every Christian believes Jesus was divine
  • Not every Christian believes there is a hell.
  • There is disagreement amongst Christians about what the Trinity is.

 

So - given that reality - as Mr. Grinch pointed out there are upwards of 35,000 different varieties (expressions) of Christianity. So - what exactly is this "religious system" that is so "poisonous"? :shrug:

 

and now we come to the nature of the essential intellectual dishonesty of the whole idea... it really is quite funny... effectively you all make it up as you go along... and that pesky Creed is just words... The Emperor is naked, and really everyone knows he's naked and they simply make up any shit that suits them... this becomes funnier by the minute...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What religious system would that be Deva? I'm serious here - about the only thing two Christians would agree on is the statement - "I am a follower of Christ".

 

I know one man who self-identifies as Christian and believes the Jesus did not actually live. He would say he is a "follower of Christ" in the sense that he believes in a "Christ Consciousness" or an "Inner Christ".

 

Good lord!! I can hardly believe my eyes. You say you are serious, but I have a hard time believing it. If you lived in deep South USA you would find a hell of a lot of agreement on who Christ is.

 

  • There is no central agreement on what the cross means.
  • Not every Christian believes in the virgin birth.
  • Not every Christian reads the Bible literally
  • Not every Christian believes Jesus was divine
  • Not every Christian believes there is a hell.
  • There is disagreement amongst Christians about what the Trinity is.

 

Sure, not every Christian (even in fundie churches by the way) believes ALL these things. So what? For people who do not believe these basic things (reading the Bible literally is not in most creeds and statements of faith) Does that make it entirely honest to stand up every Sunday and recite the creed?

 

So - given that reality - as Mr. Grinch pointed out there are upwards of 35,000 different varieties (expressions) of Christianity. So - what exactly is this "religious system" that is so "poisonous"? :shrug:

 

All the organized Christian Chruches and their teachings - that is the system. I said there may be dilute forms of the poison, but its still poison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lmao:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Questions...

 

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...

 

 

I will attempt some answers but before doing so, I wanted to say that one of the difficulties I encounter in conversations about 'life's big questions' - is that I seem to 'see' different categories of people than a lot of others do. Of course categorizing is only useful as a shortcut and should never replace proper dialogue and connection but I guess most of us need to see patterns in order to 'order' our understanding.

 

I live in one great big venn diagram and most people overlap several groups so my head tends to be quite messy!

 

My groupings are formed from the way people process their thoughts - whether they grasp the abstract and metaphorical but can also think literally, or whether they fall more often into one style or another. My groupings are based on the context in which people look outwards to the world, whether they stand in the context of loving-kindness or retaliation and anger. My groupings are formed on the basis of how self aware people are to what extent can they laugh at themselves and to what extent I can learn from them in relation to my own journey.

 

So in many ways, labels like Christian or Hindu or English or German or middle class or working class or north or south are pretty much meaningless to me in the way I make sense of my world ... but I recognise that it is useful to have a grasp of what others mean by these labels.

 

This is a mixture of my responses as someone who does not class herself as a liberal Christian but who, in a conversation with a liberal Christian finds it extremely hard to find any difference except that I live my life without the label and lie in on a Sunday morning. (Oh and there is one other pretty big difference but not one that seems to be raised by your questions but I will mention it at the end)

 

1) What is the point of Christianity?

 

Christianity isn't some magical package that arrived on earth complete in itself with a list of aims and objectives and a pre written mission statement, but I guess it's purpose is to answer some of life's big questions and provide a system of belief and practice that should enhance the life of the follower (not saying it does this - just that this could be seen as it's purpose)

 

2) Is it a religion or is it a philosophy?

 

Depends on various definitions of a number of words. Could be seen as one or the other or a bit of both.

 

3) What were we 'saved' from?

 

Baser instincts in situations where there are more loving responses that can be learned

 

4) Why was the crucifixion needed?

 

In the big scheme of things it wasn't - but in the context of the story of the crucifixion it was simply an example of non violent resistance.

 

5) Was there a physical resurrection? If it doesn't matter, why not?

 

No of course not.

 

6) Who was sacrificed to whom and why?

 

Jesus sacrificed his life because he believed it was better to avoid bloody revolution. He was the Jan Palach of his day.

 

7) It the trinity a required doctrine? If it's a false one, why tolerate it in service?

 

I have a different approach to this than O_M, its the one difference I've been able to establish in conversation with her. I think it expresses metaphorical ideas that I don't comprehend but I don't find it to be something to get one's knickers in a twist over (unless someone is trying to insist its a literal something)

 

The main reason I couldn't become a liberal christian is that Jesus isn't my archetype hero. I like mine a bit more real and raw and imperfect, if he existed, I guess he would have been these things but the story has been ruined someone over the years by all the glorification. I don't really have an emotional reaction to the life of Jesus, except for his trial and death, I have a much more powerful emotional reaction to dozens of other possibly fact possibly fiction characters from history.

 

But at the same time I am not worried by the presence of liberal Christians one little bit - unless they happen to stand for whatever reason in one of the categories of people I don't find easy to relate to ... if they lack self awareness or take their opinions too seriously or react with the world from a position of retaliation and fear ....

 

Now a lot fundamentalist Christians are in these negative groupings - as are many secular people too, who is to say whether fundamentalist religion is the excuse or the cause? What I know about these groupings is that they are fluid and flexible and people change and grow and although some seem to have more humanity than others, love and empathy and understanding can erase these man made divides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting collection of answers... and I actually agree with most of them.

 

In fact, I don't personally mind what people think, as long as they keep it to themselves... and therein is the downside of the Christian meme... its need to go beyond getting the faithful up and dressed, stopping them hurting or killing someone, and off drugs and drink, to the idea of 'spreading the good news' whichever message they've cherry picked from the motley subset of Roman Catholic Nonsense they claim unwinking membership of. It spreads... it's not incurable, but it is pernicious. Having said all that, there's a spectrum of beliefs from not Chrisitan at all, but they call themselves it (and are UU) through to drooling hate mongers.

 

Interesting how even a liberal resorts to personal aspersions when someone disagrees... So I think I've established my point about the nature of the beast. but then, I am callous, devoid of compassion, angry... :lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh, and evil incarnate :fdevil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to think the original question (moderates better than fundies) has little to do with religion at all but ways of thinking

 

extremist or black and white thinking

 

and non-extremist, all kinds of shades imbetween thinking

 

there are those that are absolutely convinced they are right or that everyone else is wrong even if they are not sure they are right, and those that feel they dont know more than they know and have eaten enough humble pie to not take extreme views.

 

I think this forum really helped me see this as less a religious thing but more of a way of thinking thing and I think extremists are in all walks of life, religious or not.

 

sojourner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soj,

 

one of the best posts I've seen for a while... my hat is off...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Gramps, I owe that one to you all, this forum has really helped me

 

so hats off to you as well

 

sojourner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.