Are The Religious Moderates Better Than The Fundies?

[Alice]

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...

 

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...

 

Interesting in the context of our ping pong dual thread convo - where remaining silent is highlighted as 'enabling'. There is quite a balance for the liberal to strike here.

 

Gramps, I think the comments of callous, lacking in compassion and so on were in response to your comments about the young girl not because there was 'disagreement' ... now did I just say that on the other thread? Did I dream it? Is it way past my bedtime? I still stand by them as as description of how your words presented to me. I stand to be corrected - please tell how you see your comments.

 

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

 

I so agree with you Sojourner - this is the nature of those 'venn diagrams' I see.

 

Oh and I lied by omission in my comments about Jesus - I also have an emotional reaction to some of the teachings attributed to him like 'he who is without sin ... cast the first stone' and to his relationship with some of the women described in the gospels.

[Open_Minded]

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.

Deva ...

 

I wish I had about an hour right now, but I don't

 

I think you just nailed why we see things so differently. No, I've never lived in the deep South USA. I live in one of the most liberal areas of the USA.

 

I will do my very best to find statistics (and I have no idea how the statistics will play out - but I think maybe the pew research web site should have some) about the denominational spread of Christianity in the USA.

 

Whatever way it turns out - I think you'll find the rest of the USA is more diverse then the deep south. And - more than that - world wide Christianity is much more diverse than in the deep South. (sigh - I really do wish I had the time right now to do the research).

 

Anyway - my point is - that objectively it's not fair to take one sampling of a population (no matter how obnoxious, annoying and even dangerous they may be) and make that sampling the definition of a Christian "system". It doesn't fit the facts that huge numbers of Christians don't resemble the sampling ......

[Deva]

I think you just nailed why we see things so differently. No, I've never lived in the deep South USA. I live in one of the most liberal areas of the USA.

 

Granted. That may be a factor. I think there are about 10 million Southern Baptists alone.

 

I think you'll find the rest of the USA is more diverse then the deep south. And - more than that - world wide Christianity is much more diverse than in the deep South. (sigh - I really do wish I had the time right now to do the research).

 

Agree there is some doctrinal diversity. But I don't think there is that much diversity on who Christ is. I just do not buy it. I continue to totally fail to see how you can ignore or brush aside so quickly the following - The Roman Catholic Church, The Lutheran Church, The Methodist, The Baptist, The Pentecostals... we could go on and on -- there is a broad agreement in these churches that Christ is divine, the Son of God, that he died on the cross to save humanity from their sins-- need we go on? We are not even speaking of really controversial areas of xian doctrine-- the trinity, exactly how one is saved, etc., we are talking about the basic definition of who Christ is.

 

Anyway - my point is - that objectively it's not fair to take one sampling of a population (no matter how obnoxious, annoying and even dangerous they may be) and make that sampling the definition of a Christian "system". It doesn't fit the facts that huge numbers of Christians don't resemble the sampling ......

 

And I still don't think that is what I am doing. If I am, it sure isn't a small sample.

[Open_Minded]

I think you just nailed why we see things so differently. No, I've never lived in the deep South USA. I live in one of the most liberal areas of the USA.

Granted. That may be a factor. I think there are about 10 million Southern Baptists alone.

 

Deva .... I found this....

 

 

http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=153#3

The view that the Bible is literally true is more widely held among women than men (39% vs. 31%) and is more prevalent among blacks compared to whites (58% vs. 31%). There is also a geographic component to opinions on this question. Nearly half of those in the South (48%) say the Bible is literally true, compared with much smaller percentages in the Midwest (34%), West (24%), and East (24%).

 

Among religious groups, more than six-in-ten black Protestants (64%) and white evangelical Protestants (62%) express the view that the Bible is literally true. Among white Catholics and white mainline Protestants, by contrast, majorities (64% and 59%, respectively) view the Bible as the word of God but reject the notion that every word should be taken literally. And most seculars (59%) believe that the Bible is a book written by men, and is not the word of God.

 

I wish I had more time to do this I really do....

 

Please understand, I am not saying that liberal Christians make up a majority, or even a sizeable minority..... What I am saying is there is more diversity - even within single congregations.... then you are probably aware of.....

 

Agree there is some doctrinal diversity. But I don't think there is that much diversity on who Christ is. I just do not buy it. I continue to totally fail to see how you can ignore or brush aside so quickly the following - The Roman Catholic Church, The Lutheran Church, The Methodist, The Baptist, The Pentecostals... we could go on and on -- there is a broad agreement in these churches that Christ is divine, the Son of God, that he died on the cross to save humanity from their sins-- need we go on? We are not even speaking of really controversial areas of xian doctrine-- the trinity, exactly how one is saved, etc., we are talking about the basic definition of who Christ is.

 

1st - I belong to a mainstream Lutheran (ELCA) church. Admittedly we're in a very liberal area. And yes, 90% of the people in my congregation recite the standard Jesus died on a cross to save humanity from sin....etc.....

 

But, I (and others) co-exist right along side them. They know who we are and how we feel and we are still welcome in their midst. They still consider us Christian, even though we view the cross differently.

 

I am not arguing that liberal Christians are the norm, I agree - we're in the minority. What I am saying is that it is not fair to assume that:

 

1. There is some kind of organized Christian "system" - there isn't - any more than there's an organized Atheist conspiracy.

 

2. That all liberal Christians are "intellectually dishonest", go to church on Sundays and recite a creed they don't believe (for example - our traditional service uses the creed, but contemporary does not).

 

3. That all liberal Christians remain silent while fundies abuse non-Christians.

 

4. That all liberal Christians try to evangelize - only in a different way (kinder gentler way) Every liberal Christian I know does NOT believe in evangelization. That is a major point I drive home when talking with Christians about interfaith dialog. The Christians I know who participate in interfaith dialog do NOT believe in evangelizing ANYONE.

 

5. Liberal Christians are just conservative light - this is patently wrong. Liberal Christians read and study the Bible the way one would study any ancient literature.

 

 

Anyway - my point is - that objectively it's not fair to take one sampling of a population (no matter how obnoxious, annoying and even dangerous they may be) and make that sampling the definition of a Christian "system". It doesn't fit the facts that huge numbers of Christians don't resemble the sampling ......

 

And I still don't think that is what I am doing. If I am, it sure isn't a small sample.

As - I said - I'm not arguing that it's a "small" sample. I live in America, I'm well acquainted with what the fundies are doing to our culture. But, literalism is still only one aspect of Christianity - it's not fair to assume every Christian fits that mold.

[R. S. Martin]

Silence by default is enabling by default...

 

I'm trying to understand the logical implications of this position. Under what circumstances do you consider their silence to be enabling by default. Did you read the article I linked in the OP? In that case, they are most definitely enablers.

 

Do you mean in the general sense of everyday living where nobody is getting hurt? If so, it seems the logical implications would mean that:

• if you don't contribute to a thread on these forums you agree by default with your silence.
  
• if you don't activate against Christianity in your country and throughout the world you agree with it by default with your silence. These forums hardly count as activating against Christianity.
  
• ad infinitum
  

In other words, you are claiming that silence is taking on a responsibility. How does this correspond with the general atheist position that the burden of proof regarding God's existence is the responsibility of the person who claims God exists? With this statement we are saying silence is not taking on responsibility.

 

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If silence is not taking on a responsibility when it comes to atheists having to prove God's nonexistence, then perhaps it is not taking on a responsibility for Christians when they do not to activate against fundnamentalist religion.

 

If I am missing your point, perhaps you will clarify. You know I think you're a good guy. I don't agree with your position on how that fifteen year old girl should have been handled but over-all you're okay in my book, Gramps.

[Deva]

The view that the Bible is literally true is more widely held among women than men (39% vs. 31%) and is more prevalent among blacks compared to whites (58% vs. 31%). <edit>

 

But I am not talking about who is taking a literal view of the Bible. There are parts of the established creed (the Nicene and Apostles Creed)not based on it - the trinity for example. I am talking about a broad consensus of belief for almost the last 2000 years on who Christ is and what he did.

 

1st - I belong to a mainstream Lutheran (ELCA) church. Admittedly we're in a very liberal area. And yes, 90% of the people in my congregation recite the standard Jesus died on a cross to save humanity from sin....etc.....

 

That is all I am saying-- they recite a standard creed, which you admit. It is organized belief. Its dishonest to recite it if you don't subsribe to this statement of belief. I will continue to insist on this point.

 

But, I (and others) co-exist right along side them. They know who we are and how we feel and we are still welcome in their midst. They still consider us Christian, even though we view the cross differently.

 

I gave you credit for being outspoken (I think it was on the other thread). My main point still stands.

 

I am not arguing that liberal Christians are the norm, I agree - we're in the minority. What I am saying is that it is not fair to assume that:

 

1. There is some kind of organized Christian "system" - there isn't - any more than there's an organized Atheist conspiracy.

 

Its not an "assumption," its a fact. The vast majority of Christians have a defined set of beliefs in Christ. I have no idea why you keep dragging in Atheists, that is a completely irrelevent comparison.

 

2. That all liberal Christians are "intellectually dishonest", go to church on Sundays and recite a creed they don't believe (for example - our traditional service uses the creed, but contemporary does not).

 

Yes, I will continue to insist upon it. Just because it isn't recited in every service doesn't excuse it. Everyone knows the historical beliefs of the church they go to, unless they are being willfully ignorant. While they are present, they tacitly condone the beliefs while condemning them in their minds.

 

3. That all liberal Christians remain silent while fundies abuse non-Christians.

 

I never said that.

 

4. That all liberal Christians try to evangelize - only in a different way (kinder gentler way) Every liberal Christian I know does NOT believe in evangelization. That is a major point I drive home when talking with Christians about interfaith dialog. The Christians I know who participate in interfaith dialog do NOT believe in evangelizing ANYONE.

 

I never said that. They don't evangelize which shows they plainly do not believe in the "great commission."

 

5. Liberal Christians are just conservative light - this is patently wrong. Liberal Christians read and study the Bible the way one would study any ancient literature.

 

I never said liberals are conservative light.

__________________

I am not saying only fundies subscribe to the system (they do also, of course). I am talking about the orthodox church which has been around for most of 2000 years and the churches derived from the reformation (yours is one of them). It IS a system, it is organized around belief and has defined beliefs their members subscribe to. I will continue to insist on it.

[Unknowing1]

Been reading the thread and I have a question. I've only been involved with the Catholic and Methodist churches so forgive me my ignorance. Do most Christian denominations have a Profession of Faith? I know there is for the Catholic and Methodist denominations. But do most of the others? The reason I ask is that I thought in order to be a Christian you accept Christ as your savior. When becoming a member of the Methodist church a person who is transferring in from another Christian denomination has to stand before the congregation and state the Profession of Faith. The Methodist Profession of Faith does state that you accept Jesus as your savior. The Catholic Profession of Faith is of that same basis...Jesus is your savor.

 

Someone made a comment about one gentleman not believing in Jesus, but believing in the concept and he was considered a Christian. In the two Christian denominations that I have been involved in Jesus is portrayed just about the same way, based on the Bible. I've never heard in either church that Jesus was a concept but instead have always been told he was "real", walked the earth, was born of the virgin Mary etc...So I guess I'm a bit confused.

 

Please note I'm not trying to debate just trying to broaden my knowledge base.

 

Thanks.

[Deva]

Been reading the thread and I have a question. I've only been involved with the Catholic and Methodist churches so forgive me my ignorance. Do most Christian denominations have a Profession of Faith? I know there is for the Catholic and Methodist denominations. But do most of the others? The reason I ask is that I thought in order to be a Christian you accept Christ as your savior. When becoming a member of the Methodist church a person who is transferring in from another Christian denomination has to stand before the congregation and state the Profession of Faith. The Methodist Profession of Faith does state that you accept Jesus as your savior. The Catholic Profession of Faith is of that same basis...Jesus is your savor.

 

Thanks for your interest Unknowing. You are correct. That is an example of what I have been saying. I am saying that there is that there is a broad agreement and consensus among Christians on who Jesus is. Churches have many disagreements on doctrine-- but they all agree basically that Jesus is divine, the Son of God, sacrifice for our sins. I say most churches have statements of faith they ask their members to ascribe to, confirmations, etc. I made an exception for the Unitarians (who are not orthodox). I completely fail to see why not everyone is aware of this fact.

 

Someone made a comment about one gentleman not believing in Jesus, but believing in the concept and he was considered a Christian. In the two Christian denominations that I have been involved in Jesus is portrayed just about the same way, based on the Bible. I've never heard in either church that Jesus was a concept but instead have always been told he was "real", walked the earth, was born of the virgin Mary etc...So I guess I'm a bit confused.

 

My experience also. In all the churches I have ever been in, even a liberal Episcopal Church, Jesus is believed to be real, not a concept. The "concept" notion is heretical (even though they don't use the word heretical anymore).

 

I find myself in the curious position of (in a way) defending organized religion. I clearly said it is all poison, but I still think it is intellectually dishonest for someone to attend a church that views christ as a real person, divine, etc., and hold to a completely different definition of christ. I have been accused of making "wild" statements. No one actually knows in reality who Jesus was. No one knows what "to be a follower of Christ" means. To attend a church as a member and subscribe to these ideas (creeds) is ignorant in the light of today's knowledge, in my opinon. To make stuff up about Jesus and recite a creed or attend a church where historically they hold to a completely different position is intellectually dishonest. To the best of my knowledge, the Catholic Church and all the mainline denominations and fundamentalist churches subscribe to creeds or statements of faith. I am not dividing fundies from mainline or Catholics from protestatants and this isn't about reading the Bible literally or not.

[Alice]

Thanks for your interest Unknowing. You are correct. That is an example of what I have been saying. I am saying that there is that there is a broad agreement and consensus among Christians on who Jesus is. Churches have many disagreements on doctrine-- but they all agree basically that Jesus is divine, the Son of God, sacrifice for our sins. I say most churches have statements of faith they ask their members to ascribe to, confirmations, etc. I made an exception for the Unitarians (who are not orthodox). I completely fail to see why not everyone is aware of this fact.

 

 

I find myself in the curious position of (in a way) defending organized religion. I clearly said it is all poison, but I still think it is intellectually dishonest for someone to attend a church that views christ as a real person, divine, etc., and hold to a completely different definition of christ. I have been accused of making "wild" statements. No one actually knows in reality who Jesus was. No one knows what "to be a follower of Christ" means. To attend a church as a member and subscribe to these ideas (creeds) is ignorant in the light of today's knowledge, in my opinon. To make stuff up about Jesus and recite a creed or attend a church where historically they hold to a completely different position is intellectually dishonest. To the best of my knowledge, the Catholic Church and all the mainline denominations and fundamentalist churches subscribe to creeds or statements of faith. I am not dividing fundies from mainline or Catholics from protestatants and this isn't about reading the Bible literally or not.

 

Perhaps because whilst it may be a fact that when you look around from where you are standing this is how the world looks, this is not necessarily how it looks from someone else's standpoint.

 

From where I am standing, as I mentioned in response to Gramps questions, I don't see Christianity as some sort of complete package that arrived on earth with a set of objects and a pre written mission statement. I see Christianity as fluid and evolving. I am conscious of the fact that pre modernist history has been written about and interpreted through a modern mindset. I am aware that I myself live in transition between modernism and post-moderism. My children on the other hand, have very post modern mindsets and often 'think' very differently to me. I accept that there is general 'man in the street' world view that may not be taking such things into consideration.

 

I have found this conversation and the sister thread extremely illuminating in terms of trying to understand how others see the world, I know that it has become quite heated at times but I am really glad we are sticking with it and I really hope it does lead to more understanding between the various view points reflected here.

 

I think I can see both sides as it were. For myself, with my background, I felt that I could no longer remain in a Church where I was in 'disagreement' with written mission statements. At the time this was because (don't cringe!!) I felt that if I 'couldn't accept the authority of the pastor', then it was only right that I walk away. Three years ago I guess I would have been saying pretty much the same as you and I think as I looked out I 'saw' something pretty similar ... because I'd spent the majority of my time with literalists and had absorbed the idea that theirs was 'true' christianity - I pretty much saw things as you've described. I do accept that the current majority view of the man in the street - is that christianity involves a belief that 'Jesus died on the cross for our sins'. (although just exactly in what 'way' one is expected to believe this is different from the UK to large parts of the US)

 

But lately I question whether this was the right thing to do and whether at the time I was simply conditioned by a 'don't question church authority' mentality and that I was giving the church 'rights' to determine what its members believe. Who says that Churches can insist on a particular set of beliefs - God? That's what those who believe in a personal God think - but me, I think it is probably up to the members ... and just as I think it is OK for people to join a Golf Club and seek to begin to change it ... I'm coming round to a position that its OK for people to do this with Churches.

 

From where I'm standing Deva, I'm not sure anymore if my response wasn't, for me, dishonest, maybe I should have stayed and offered my alternative views, whatever it was - my leaving could be described as cowardly and self seeking ... But it could be described as a multitude of things. Such is the nature of interpreting beheviour - so much of it is subjective. The only 'fact' is that I left the Church - how one interprets or understands that decision is entirely subject and variable and different person to person. The same would apply if I had stayed.

 

I'm back to the example of nationhood - I'm seriously uncomfortable with many aspects of English and British history and many of the current day perceptions as to what it means to be English. Does this mean that I am dishonest to remain here or to consider myself English?

 

I would consider this a useful dialogue if at the end of it, I felt that I understood why remaining part of church would be a dishonest act for you (and I think I do) and that you understood that from where O_M is standing, her remaining in the Church is not dishonest for her and that Alice wishes she saw the honest option for herself as clearly as both you and O_M see yours!

 

If we were to pick up Gramps disease analogy again, I'm starting to think that I'd go as far to say that liberal christianity is a vital force in fighting the disease - I think it can innoculate people against the hooks of fundamentalism (I accept that I do know of a few people who succumbed to fundamentalism after first following liberalism - this does happen sometimes in immunisation programmes, more are saved however)

 

Easier for me to arrive at this conclusion I guess than for some - as my truck has mainly been fundamentalism and not religion per se.

[Unknowing1]

thanks!

 

I knew that was where you were coming from. The comments by some make me think that perhaps there might be some Christian denominations that don't prescribe to the same belief system and I am curious if there are any.

 

When I made the switch from the Catholic religion, I did do some research and all I found on other Christian denominations as it related to Jesus was they were pretty much the same. I only switched to Methodist because I thought I could stomach it the best. They weren't supposed to be as closed minded about people as some. However, I'm just curious to see if my own research was off in some way shape or form. That perhaps when I did research denominations I missed something. I actually did go into websites and read statements of faith, professions of faith and a lot of other information. But I would like to know if I am wrong in my understanding that Christianity is based upon the premise that Jesus is Savior and that Jesus was a real man.

 

BTW, What you have said could have applied to me and here is why.

 

I realized I didn't believe in the Jesus as was portrayed to me by both the catholic and methodist church while standing before a methodist congregation to say the Profession of Faith to become a new member. It just all of a sudden hit me, I didn't believe Jesus was my savior. Here I am standing there in front of all these people. In my mind I'm like what in the hell do I do, walk out and embarrass myself and my friends or lie? Not wanting to hurt my friends or embarrass myself in the middle of everything I lied, I said the words exactly as I was supposed to, waited until the service was over, walked out and have never been back. I'd become what I abhor, a lier and a hypocrite. I felt like crap and still do to this day and I've sworn to never do something like that again.

[Vigile]

It's irrational to claim that not only atheists are welcome here, but anyone of the ex Christian persuasion, be it deist, pantheist, buddhist, spiritualist, etc... and then to dog on those who use the Christian label, but who are obviously not Christian in the sense of the word from that which we escaped.

 

In other words, why is it ok to be irrational about the belief in Satanism on this board, for example, but it is not ok for somene like OM to choose her own very inoffensive, IMO, definition of Christianity?

 

Accepting her is not a popularity contest, it's being consistant with the way we treat other exers on this board. I've never seen OM make a claim. She has, on occasion when asked, shared her perspective, but in a non confrontational, IMHO sort of way.

[Deva]

I see Christianity as fluid and evolving.

 

I don't dispute that it is evolving -- slowly. I still maintain there are core beliefs that are similar among most established and organized churches about who Jesus is.

 

 

I accept that there is general 'man in the street' world view that may not be taking such things into consideration.

 

Thanks Alice, I am glad that you see that.

 

 

I do accept that the current majority view of the man in the street - is that christianity involves a belief that 'Jesus died on the cross for our sins'. (although just exactly in what 'way' one is expected to believe this is different from the UK to large parts of the US)

 

That's what I have been saying. It is the common view of most Christians throughout history. But, I acknowledge that nowdays in certain geographical areas that view may not apply. It certainly does still apply in the southern (and probably midwest) USA.

 

Who says that Churches can insist on a particular set of beliefs - God? That's what those who believe in a personal God think - but me, I think it is probably up to the members ... and just as I think it is OK for people to join a Golf Club and seek to begin to change it ... I'm coming round to a position that its OK for people to do this with Churches.

 

The members of the church insist on a particular set of beliefs -- usually a set of beliefs written out by someone else centuries ago. As far as joining something with the intent to change it?--I have to think about the honesty of that. It just doesn't sit right with me. A Golf Club has rules but it is different than a list of beliefs one has to give their allegence to in order to join-- core ideas about the nature of man and God.

 

I'm back to the example of nationhood - I'm seriously uncomfortable with many aspects of English and British history and many of the current day perceptions as to what it means to be English. Does this mean that I am dishonest to remain here or to consider myself English?

 

Nationality is a different matter. I was born in the USA. No choice in the matter. American whether I like it or not. I don't like US culture or the government. Am I dishonest to remain here? I don't think so. I am not forced to swear an oath or make a statement. If I were to have to now, I might be seriously looking to emigrate. But A church - you have a certain leeway in saying "I don't like what they teach" and either not go to one or go to a different one that upholds their viewpoint. There is always the Unitarian Church.

 

I think we are understanding each other better.

[Alice]

I love that feeling of new understanding amoungst people - it's one of my favourite things.

 

It is the common view of most Christians throughout history....

 

*snip*

 

The members of the church insist on a particular set of beliefs -- usually a set of beliefs written out by someone else centuries ago. As far as joining something with the intent to change it?--I have to think about the honesty of that. It just doesn't sit right with me. A Golf Club has rules but it is different than a list of beliefs one has to give their allegence to in order to join-- core ideas about the nature of man and God.

 

just a couple of things - whilst we both see a current common view of Christianity - when I look out I do not the same common view having been held throughout history. What I see is history often being interpreted as if this were the case, but I see lots to suggest that this wasn't the case. Many things that are now 'taken for granted' as always having been part of Christianity are pretty recent additions. A good example would be the 'personal relationship' with Jesus. This was seen as heretical in the medieval era. This casts a very different light on the way the way the current church tends to paint its history.

 

I am married to a golfer - you'd be surprised how core to their being many golfers think the rules of the club to be! but I know that for most of us religion is a bigger 'concern' than golf club membership ....

 

Does anyone owe allegience to members of a past church who centuries ago came up with a mission statement? I guess I think it is OK for these things to evolve and change with the times ... if I still wanted to attend Church I would be torn between the UU and attending a Church where I thought I could contribute to that positive evolution.

 

But if I'm being perfectly honest, I'd probably make my decison based on a combination of the social scene and geographical location ... not the most noble of reasons! (I wouldn't be able to join a Church that prescribed the 'way' in which I was supposed to believe a creed, but I could possibly have joined one where it was OK for me to recite the creed in inverted comma's!!)

 

I think I admire O_M's decision to be a member of her particular Church and work towards greater understanding in an environment where there is a mix of views - some of which are pretty challenging, over attending a UU church where a greater percentage are likely to be 'singing from the same hymn sheet.

[Open_Minded]

1st - I belong to a mainstream Lutheran (ELCA) church. Admittedly we're in a very liberal area. And yes, 90% of the people in my congregation recite the standard Jesus died on a cross to save humanity from sin....etc.....

That is all I am saying-- they recite a standard creed, which you admit. It is organized belief. Its dishonest to recite it if you don't subsribe to this statement of belief. I will continue to insist on this point.

Deva - I also said that at the contemporary service we don't recite the standard creed. That's my whole point - within a mainstream ELCA Lutheran congregation, members who go to the traditional service recite the creed you are familiar with. But, within the same congregation, members who go to the contemporary service do NOT. IF there is a creed at contemporary service, and that is NOT every Sunday, it is something written by one of our members and more reflective of the personality in contemporary service......

 

And .... to boot .... we are doing this in a mainstream congregation with full awareness of those participating in the traditional service. Not only that - just in the years I've been there - there has been an increased amount of education on the creed - where it came from - how it came to be - that the earliest Christian movement was much more diverse - all of these things. So, even if someone goes to traditional and recites the creed, they're more aware of the political background from which it came.

 

I don't know - I can see your point, please understand that. I do acknowledge that someone reciting a creed, pledge, etc... of any kind and not believing it is destructive and dishonest.

 

But, it's just not that simple, at least within the mainstream church I'm involved in. A very long time ago .... when I first started going to this church .... I went to traditional service for some reason. I had the opportunity to sit next to an elderly couple - whom I'm very fond of. They've grown up in this church, their family history includes founders of the church. One of the things I noticed they drew great comfort from was the rhythm of traditional service. It wasn't the words per se ... .it was the experience.

 

I spent the whole service reading the words of songs and such from the bulletin and song book. They used neither, they knew the whole service by heart - they've grown up singing the same songs, reciting the same service monologues from childhood. They are very comfortable with the rhythm of traditional service and that is why they attend. They don't believe Christianity is the only way to God, I'm not sure what they really believe about Jesus. If you asked them they'd recite the standard creed, but honestly I don't think they give it any thought. They think I think too much about these things. (They've told me so in a very sweet way).

 

For them God is bigger then the creeds and the songs, they connect through the traditions and rituals they've known since childhood. Who am I to argue with that???? They don't hurt other human beings, they have compassion for humans in general. They don't believe non-Christians will fry in hell, they believe in science and don't expect our school systems to teach creationism.... so who am I (or other liberal members of our congregation) to push the way they worship out of our congregational life????

 

I am not arguing that liberal Christians are the norm, I agree - we're in the minority. What I am saying is that it is not fair to assume that:

 

1. There is some kind of organized Christian "system" - there isn't - any more than there's an organized Atheist conspiracy.

Its not an "assumption," its a fact. The vast majority of Christians have a defined set of beliefs in Christ. I have no idea why you keep dragging in Atheists, that is a completely irrelevent comparison.

Deva - just because a "vast majority of Christians have a defined set of beliefs" does not make those beliefs a "System". There is no place within Christianity - today - where you will find Christians from all the different denominations of the world sitting down and deciding what is "required" to be a Christian. On the contrary, within the Christianity of today you will find a great diversity of beliefs. Even within individual congregations you will find a great diversity of beliefs - as explained above.

 

I am not saying only fundies subscribe to the system (they do also, of course). I am talking about the orthodox church which has been around for most of 2000 years and the churches derived from the reformation (yours is one of them). It IS a system, it is organized around belief and has defined beliefs their members subscribe to. I will continue to insist on it.

Yes ... there is an historical "orthodox" understanding of Christianity since the reformation. But, that "orthodox" view is being increasingly challenged on all sides - especially since the discovery of the Gnostic texts and the gospel of Thomas. You will find ministers who come out of mainstream seminaries are very educated about the earliest strains of Christianity before the creeds came into existence and the New Testament as we know it today came into existence. These ministers are also very well educated about the world's religions and do take on the job of educating the congregations they are involved with.

 

You are right ELCA Lutheran is one of branches of Christianity that came out of the reformation. You will also find that our seminaries and universities are leading the way in studying the Bible and early Christianity and Gnostic texts with a high emphasis on things like archeology, textual criticism, etc.... You will find that ministers coming out of these seminaries are pretty well versed in the basics of other religions.

 

Within our own congregation our minister takes a very active role in educating lay people about all of these things. The reason we've been able to do the interfaith/meditative work we've done is because of his leadership in education. During both traditional and contemporary services he has intentionally taken time to draw comparisons between the Bible verses of a particular Sunday with similar verses from other major world religions.

 

He has intentionally taken the time over may years to educate our congregation about the creeds, where they came from the diversity of the earliest Christian movements. It is because of all this work that our congregation can house people with so many different understandings of what it means to say, "I am Christian".

 

I do accept that the current majority view of the man in the street - is that christianity involves a belief that 'Jesus died on the cross for our sins'. (although just exactly in what 'way' one is expected to believe this is different from the UK to large parts of the US)

That's what I have been saying. It is the common view of most Christians throughout history. But, I acknowledge that nowdays in certain geographical areas that view may not apply. It certainly does still apply in the southern (and probably midwest) USA.

I think this is where we're crossing wires Deva, I really do. We both take for granted that the Christianity we see around us, in our local corner of the world, IS Christianity. I live in a very liberal area and see a very different Christianity than you see. You are familiar with a very different strand of Christianity than I am. It doesn't make either one of us right or wrong - it's just relative - that's all.....

[Deva]

OK Openminded. I am not going to "dog" you any more. I didn't start this whole line of questioning and I hope you did not take anything I said as a personal affront. I think I have made my position clear. I believe we have some understanding of our respective positions going on now.

 

I don't want to create ill-will on the boards, so I will bow out of this particular discussion.

[Open_Minded]

OK Openminded. I am not going to "dog" you any more. I didn't start this whole line of questioning and I hope you did not take anything I said as a personal affront. I think I have made my position clear. I believe we have some understanding of our respective positions going on now.

 

I don't want to create ill-will on the boards, so I will bow out of this particular discussion.

Deva - you are right - I do believe we've reached some understanding of our respective positions. I agree with you - it is dishonest for a person to go along with a creed when they disagree with it.

 

All I ask - and this is the reason I've been so insistent - is that people not lump all Christians together in one basket. There are many of us doing the hard work of challenging what has been considered "orthodox" for hundreds of years. It is NOT easy work.

 

In Peace O_M

[SWIM]

It's irrational to claim that not only atheists are welcome here, but anyone of the ex Christian persuasion, be it deist, pantheist, buddhist, spiritualist, etc... and then to dog on those who use the Christian label, but who are obviously not Christian in the sense of the word from that which we escaped.

 

I have heard other deists questioned here, though not many. I remember Thur getting grilled about his Nordic religion before. Though the grilling of deists are not as strong as for xtians.

 

In other words, why is it ok to be irrational about the belief in Satanism on this board, for example, but it is not ok for somene like OM to choose her own very inoffensive, IMO, definition of Christianity?

 

Irrational is irrational. The reason they are not pounced on is because the focus is on ex-c people, not atheists. People jump on anyone with a xtian label because xtianity has harmed so many.

 

Accepting her is not a popularity contest, it's being consistant with the way we treat other exers on this board. I've never seen OM make a claim. She has, on occasion when asked, shared her perspective, but in a non confrontational, IMHO sort of way.

 

The only reason "I" accept both OM and Soj is "not" any form of agreement with them. I most certainly feel they are wrong. However, like Thur, who does NOT push his beliefs on people, neither do they. Plus they show understanding for the ex-c point of view.

 

Pascal's wager holds sway over a lot of people. Timid, emotional people tend to be victim to it more so then stronger willed people. Even if it is *only* subconscious, pascal's wager I see as being strong in them both.

 

It's like this, they discard nearly all of the dogma of xtianity, but fall short of the total de-conversion mark due to pascal's wager, and that alone. It is a phase, or stage of their learning process. It's kinda like, "I will say and beleve whatever I want, as long as I claim xtiainty, I will be OK".

 

The bottom line is really where did they get xtianity from in the first place?

We ALL get it hand me down. We do. And it comes from the book. There is no historical evidence to support their claims, nor scientific. It is like superstition in a way, like not walking under a ladder, or letting a black cat cross your path. There is no religion behind either of those beliefs, but some rational people still believe them.

 

Xtianity originates from the bible, the RCC chose which books you are allowed to have in it, and *they* edited it throughout time to suit their needs. To take a book with such "shady" origins, and pick it to tiny little pieces, disregarding the VAST majority of it, and holding on to so little of it, is grasping at straws. Deep inside I think they know this.

 

I believe they BOTH hang out here, and get along so well with us because they are actually ONE of us. They just have not found the courage and will power to overcome it.

 

I notice time and again, even in checkmate's debate, that OM tends to answer with book-sized responses. I might even get one for this. Really, if you cannot make logical sense about your position without writing a book, then your beliefs are truly found "wanting". Common sense and logic, rational thought, never needs elaborate long winded explanations.

 

Sooner or later they both will see what so many have tried to tell them at this site. It is only a matter of time. I honestly feel strongly we will eventually be reading BOTH of their de-conversion testimonies eventually, they may not agree with that, but I am willing to take side wagers that at least ONE will either vanish from this site, or write a de-conversion testimony within one year of today. Any takers? Winner can be paid by paypal. Accepting any amount for the wager.

 

That's called "Michael's Wager" lol Pascal, eat your heart out!

[Open_Minded]

I believe they BOTH hang out here, and get along so well with us because they are actually ONE of us. They just have not found the courage and will power to overcome it.

Michael - you do not know me - so (here we go again) allow me to give you a bit of an education....

 

First of all - I spent my teen and early adult years in an Ex-C family. My parents left the Catholic church when I was in my early teens. My mother (to this day considers herself Deist more than Christian - although she does attend church with my father occasionally). My father (during my teen years) wavered between agnostic and atheist - he returned to Christianity when I was in my late 20s.

 

I spent several years of my early adult life as an Ex-C - only back then there was no such label - nor a group like this.

 

I returned to Christianity of my own choice (and if you were acquainted with me at all - you'd have the background information to know that I'm as well educated about the Bible, early Christianity and other religions as your average Ex-C'er).

 

Sooner or later they both will see what so many have tried to tell them at this site. It is only a matter of time. I honestly feel strongly we will eventually be reading BOTH of their de-conversion testimonies eventually

Well... again ... if you'd had any background information on me - you'd know that I could have written my deconverstion testimony when I was about 13 years old to about 27-28 years old. It would have been a good one too, Michael - it could equally rivaled many I've read on this board. But, quite simply, the facts are.... I came back to Christianity. You don't have to like that fact - but it is a fact.

 

Oh... and as for your wager...

 

but I am willing to take side wagers that at least ONE will either vanish from this site, or write a de-conversion testimony within one year of today. Any takers? Winner can be paid by paypal. Accepting any amount for the wager.

I've been a member of this board since around Christmas of 2005 - so we're on 2 years and counting. Granted I've been on somewhat of a break because of family issues - but - I'mmm Baaaaaack.......

 

So place your bets on Soj - cause they're wasted on me.

[SWIM]

I came back to Christianity. You don't have to like that fact - but it is a fact.

 

 

We shall see. Care to take me up on the wager? I don't care "why" you "say" you went back to it. I read between the lines quite well.

 

Amount please, I will write it in my notebook.

 

Oh and I don't like or dislike it, I just see this as a stage. True you backslide back into it, some people stumble around before they learn to walk.

 

Put your money where your mouth is!

[Open_Minded]

I came back to Christianity. You don't have to like that fact - but it is a fact.

 

 

We shall see. Care to take me up on the wager? I don't care "why" you "say" you went back to it. I read between the lines quite well.

 

Amount please, I will write it in my notebook.

 

Oh and I don't like or dislike it, I just see this as a stage. True you backslide back into it, some people stumble around before they learn to walk.

 

Put your money where your mouth is!

 

[Grandpa Harley]

It's irrational to claim that not only atheists are welcome here, but anyone of the ex Christian persuasion, be it deist, pantheist, buddhist, spiritualist, etc... and then to dog on those who use the Christian label, but who are obviously not Christian in the sense of the word from that which we escaped.

 

In other words, why is it ok to be irrational about the belief in Satanism on this board, for example, but it is not ok for somene like OM to choose her own very inoffensive, IMO, definition of Christianity?

 

Accepting her is not a popularity contest, it's being consistant with the way we treat other exers on this board. I've never seen OM make a claim. She has, on occasion when asked, shared her perspective, but in a non confrontational, IMHO sort of way.

 

You're really going to make me prove Godwin's Rule correct?

[Ouroboros]

You're really going to make me prove Godwin's Rule correct?

You already got the image in your sigline. So by default you're a Godwin enablerer.

 

Question: (without having read all the responses and such) - just a thought - if moderate Christians are enablers by default by inaction, is inactive or "quiet" atheists also enablers for religious fundamentalism, since they don't act against or stop it from arising?

 

-edit-

 

I don't think I have stated my opinion yet on this thread (there's so much going on that I forget which thread I was participating in or not), but I have no problem with moderate Christians, as long as they stay that way. Anything and any ideology can be taken to the extreme, and the extreme examples aren't necessarily a proof of the faults in the ideology, but rather just "holes" which the ideology does not cover. A secular society recognizes this and just makes sure to keep everyone from becomming a powerful force of extremism. That way, everyone is a moderate in one way or another. America is heading for a polarized situation which is not good, we need to find the no-war-zone between us and pull America back to its center. (Yuck, do I have to get so political sometimes...)

[Skankboy]

Question: (without having read all the responses and such) - just a thought - if moderate Christians are enablers by default by inaction, is inactive or "quiet" atheists also enablers for religious fundamentalism, since they don't act against or stop it from arising?

 

Yes, but not as much so. Fundamentalists don't claim to speak for us, but they do claim to speak for "Christendom". If someone was going around saying crazy shit about Buddhism, and I didn't speak up somehow (even if it is just in the forums here), I feel I would be enabling "fundametalist Buddhism" through my inaction. (For Evil to fluorish only requires that good people do nothing...)

 

It seems to me that most of the fundamentalists' "power" comes the common base of "we're all christians". It gives them legitamacy in society because (at least here in the US) something like 80% identify themselves as "Christian" in surveys. They are the most vocal and prominent of this majority and thus act as representatives. If you don't feel these people are respresentative of your beliefs, it's your responsibility to let them know.

 

I honestly wonder how different all this would be if the various denominations had chosen to use terms other than "christian" as a way of distinguishing themselves?

[Open_Minded]

skankboy and Hans - hello

 

Question: (without having read all the responses and such) - just a thought - if moderate Christians are enablers by default by inaction, is inactive or "quiet" atheists also enablers for religious fundamentalism, since they don't act against or stop it from arising?

 

 

Yes, but not as much so. Fundamentalists don't claim to speak for us, but they do claim to speak for "Christendom". <snip>

 

It seems to me that most of the fundamentalists' "power" comes the common base of "we're all christians". It gives them legitamacy in society because (at least here in the US) something like 80% identify themselves as "Christian" in surveys.

 

I'd like to relate another story to both of you...

 

I live near a major university - because of my work in interfaith dialog I am acquainted with some of the students. This university has an active interfaith group as well as an active atheist/agnostic group.

 

One liberal Christian student, I know, told me this story. He works for the campus newspaper - and during a recent political season when candidates were discussing an amendment to our state constitution defining marriage between a man and woman - this liberal Christian wanted to write an article pulling all the differing views from the liberal perspective.

 

He went to liberal theologians on campus, he also called the university atheist/agnostic group and spoke to the group leader. She would not participate in the interview for the article. She was angry that he was challenging the fundy desire for a constitutional amendment using liberal theologians as part of the larger article. She remained silent because of her own bias towards Christianity.

 

Atheists do have a duty to speak out. They also have a duty (for the good of the larger culture) to recognize there are many Christians they could work with and who would help them in the goals they set for making a political difference in their communities and in this country. But..... they have to get beyond their own biases and be willing to work with and alongside liberal Christians.

[Skankboy]

She remained silent because, in this case, her working with the liberal christian could be seen as "supporting" christianity in general (my guess). Unfortunately, I'd be willing to be your student was better off not having an atheist chime in for exact same reason though. It would have, in my opinion, instantly shut off any dialog as the fundamentalist mindset is already one that "atheists are evil" so anyone that agrees with them must be wrong.

 

I think it's great he tried to do the article, don't get me wrong. That's exactly the type of stuff that needs to be done (and even more if possible).

 

I personally have to constantly explain that Buddhism has nothing to do with reincarnation, karma and the like. If I didn't, it would be same as saying these things are correct. I don't believe these things are so, so I stand up for what I believe. Again, a lot of it is symantics. "Christian" is a VERY loaded term, most especially around here. If there were a better term for people like you and Soj, I wish it existed. But so long as people call themselves "Christian" they are going to inherit what comes with that label (good and bad).

 

Again, the main issue is one where a fundamentalist minority is allowed to speak for a moderate/liberal majority because the majority is unable/unwilling to challenge them. This applies to any religious system.

 

Let's also be clear about a something: if fundamentalism wasn't trying to speak for everyone, there wouldn't be this issue. Everyone would just consider them a fringe cult like all the others. It's the term "Christian" and the overly-common usage of the term when speaking about VERY different beliefs, that seems to be a root cause of this issue. If only they and/or you all could call yourselves something else, I don't think the "enabler" label would be as appropriate. I know that's not realistic... but I can dream...