Are The Religious Moderates Better Than The Fundies?

[Antlerman]

Say it again Antlerman.

I will probably weigh in on this later, but I need to take a time to shake myself of this right now. What's important? Political camps or people?

[Grandpa Harley]

Interesting... I don't recall calling the vacuous bitch anything before she started in on my personality... but then... I'm callous. Wring one's hands and giving the 'you don't know people, you're just a nasty man' gives the lie to a priori judgement of the accuser as well as the accused (which was my point)... but it's OM so that's ok... Basically one can learn a lot when one plays the part far enough...

 

Seems to me we are long on denial of responsiblity for other members of their benighted, demon spawned, cultus

 

 

and Grammar police... The word is TENET... not tenant, not tenent.... TEN-ET -An opinion, doctrine, or principle held as being true by a person or especially by an organization.

 

Jesus, Mary and Joseph!

[Open_Minded]

Interesting... I don't recall calling the vacuous bitch anything before she started in on my personality... but then... I'm callous. Wring one's hands and giving the 'you don't know people, you're just a nasty man' which gives the lie to a priori judgement... but it's OM so that's ok... Basically one can learn a lot when one plays the part far enough...

Grandpa - when you're done whining why don't you go back and see when, where and why I called you "callous".

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=331156

 

In O_M's post on the Grinch thread she mentions the story of the Grandmother... If the girl in question had been allowed to carry on in that view. well, in the end the sane would ostracise her, and the occasional back hander from a peer would be illustration enough in the error of her ways. In the end, some people only understand a punch in the mouth.

Your response has all the compassion of a fundamentalist Christian, congratulations...

a

Again, if you'd bothered to think with your brain rather than your anger you would realize this young girl was raised within fundamentalism. She had no freaken choice - her parents took her to a fundy church. She was merely spewing forth the hatred she'd been taught in that church when she got into trouble at school. And quite frankly, I've much more sympathy for the teens and young adults coming into my life who make erroneous assumptions about other people because of what they've been taught then I do for full grown adults who make erroneous assumptions simply because they are filled with anger and don't want to take the time to get to know a person as an individual.

Your callous attitude towards this young girl says much about you Grandpa Harley - and none of it good. In the past - I've enjoyed reading many of posts throughout this board. I've enjoyed your wit - but, never again will I be able to freely enjoy your wit without remembering how callous you were towards a young girl.... You don't know her, you don't know her grandmother and you don't know me and yet you feel you have the right to sit in judgment. You are a fundamentalist at heart - just Darwinian that's all......

 

Spare me the theatrics ... what exactly did you expect from me????

 

By the time you posted this enough about me had been shared to know that I came to this board to help a young teen escape fundamentalism. Then I shared this story about the teen grand-daughter of a friend... Did you not get the drift that I like teens - I think they're wonderful - they make lot's of mistakes but as I said earlier....

 

quite frankly, I've much more sympathy for the teens and young adults coming into my life who make erroneous assumptions about other people because of what they've been taught then I do for full grown adults who make erroneous assumptions simply because they are filled with anger and don't want to take the time to get to know a person as an individual.

 

You want my respect??? Show respect to others - it's that simple...

[Ouroboros]

...What's important? Political camps or people?

People are important. Political camps are okay. But it's just political people that I have a hard time with.

[Alice]

Interesting... I don't recall calling the vacuous bitch anything before she started in on my personality... but then... I'm callous. Wring one's hands and giving the 'you don't know people, you're just a nasty man' gives the lie to a priori judgement of the accuser as well as the accused (which was my point)... but it's OM so that's ok... Basically one can learn a lot when one plays the part far enough...

 

Seems to me we are long on denial of responsiblity for other members of their benighted, demon spawned, cultus

 

 

and Grammar police... The word is TENET... not tenant, not tenent.... TEN-ET -An opinion, doctrine, or principle held as being true by a person or especially by an organization.

 

Jesus, Mary and Joseph!

 

Gramps,

 

do you really not understand why O_M became upset? It was your attitude towards the young girl in O_M's story. Think any one of a multitude of mothers protecting her young Mr Darwin ...

 

Maybe if anyone is guilty here of responding differently because of the personalities involved... it's me over you, it is certainly not others in this thread towards O_M. You are underestimating many of us here that respect O_M and enjoy her input ... she won this respect, not by being soft and cuddly or courting the popular vote but by consistently answering questions openly and honestly, asking questions and being genuinely interested in the answers ...

 

I think you underestimate AM, Vigile, and many others by suggesting that somehow they suspend their usual good judgement and 'let O_M off' because she's 'popular'. Tut tut.

 

However, studying my own behaviour I am troubled that I let you off because well ... I sort of like you. I should have been much more robust in my response.

 

You seem very interested in the fact that you have been labelled 'callous'. Instead of just reminding us every other post of this fact - how about you elaborate on this. How do you regard your attitude?

 

I really didn't like your response, it sounded 'callous' to me - I think I understand this on one level - in that the evolutionary process cannot be said to be 'callous' as there is no intent ... but excuse me if I don't believe you couldn't have expressed this more clearly...

 

and so I find your apparent lack of empathy or concern - concerning. I didn't get quite as angry ... but that's in part because I choose to think you are not as you are so happy to portray yourself. (of course we should bear in mind that Alice is a soppy optimist with idealistic leanings ... so that will colour how she see's people)

 

Cough up Mr Harley snr.

[Alice]

By the time you posted this enough about me had been shared to know that I came to this board to help a young teen escape fundamentalism. Then I shared this story about the teen grand-daughter of a friend... Did you not get the drift that I like teens - I think they're wonderful - they make lot's of mistakes but as I said earlier....

 

O_M,

 

I hadn't seen this when I posted - I think our replies crossed over, I hesitated about including my line about mothers protecting their young ... but I see I didn't need to!

 

I understand so strongly how you feel about the vulnerability of teenage.

[R. S. Martin]

Christianity, in all it's forms, seems to be a prosletyzing cult.

 

Is this a 'true' statement?

 

I want to respond to this later. I also read your other post to me. Right now I need to get ready to celebrate the longest night of the year--Winter Solstice, the event is tonight. Not sure which night is the longest night.

[bush country]

Coming into this kind of late....I've read all the posts so far. Kind of got heated!

 

General comment on moderates/liberals enabling fundies. O_M, if I remember correctly, is a member of, or at least attends, an ELCA church. According to their web site the "E" stands for "Evangelical". Gotta figure that if Evangelical is part of the synod's name, then at some level they evangelize. Also according to their web site, they support international missions. Quoting from the ELCA web site on Global Mission:

 

What is global mission?

 

In Matthew 28:19-20 and many other biblical passages, God calls us to participate in God’s mission by sharing the good news of Jesus Christ in word and deed. "Global mission" refers to the way the ELCA responds to God’s call to mission outside the United States.

 

Now I realize that the missionaries for the ELCA may not be fundy like those of the Southern Baptist Convention, but their mission is still to share the "good news" of Jesus Christ. IMO and experience, missionaries as a group, whatever the denomination, are more fundamental in their beliefs than the average church member/attender. By supporting the synod, or convention, one is supporting the more fundamental members of it, regardless of their own personal beliefs. The individual members may not personally evangelize anyone, they just pay others to do it for them. They are enabling fundamentalism.

[Evolution_beyond]

Fundies are assholes. Worthy of about as much respect as the BNP or the Ku Klux Klan.

 

Liberal christians are reasonable, decent people who happen to believe in a lot of nonsense (imo)

 

So really there is no comparison.

 

The problem I suppose is that some of the nonsense that liberal christians believe, at best leads to unhealthy feelings of guilt and a negative view of mankind, and at worst could itself lead to fundamentalism if taken seriously. The only other option is to argue away most of what is in the bible - and I suppose that's why people are calling liberal christians intellectually dishonest.

 

I think there are three types of christian really.

 

One type are the fundies - and I wouldn't even waste valuable fluid spitting on them.

 

Another type believe the basics - original sin, heaven and hell, crucifixion and resurrection - but don't spend too much time thinking about it.

 

And the third type cling to all the good stuff in the Bible and try and argue away all the other stuff.

 

To the second and third types I would say "doesn't the Bible speak of original sin? doesn't that paint an unnecessarily negative portrayal of human nature? - do you think that's healthy? doesn't the Bible speak of hell, and of god coming as Jesus to die as a sacrifice to spare us from hell? How do you square that stuff with a loving God, or even a sane God? (sacrificing yourself so that you can allow yourself to forgive doesn't sound like a sane thought process) Doesn't the Bible speak of the need for repentance? Don't you think christianity encourages an awful lot of feeling guilty, rather than moving on positively?"

 

The second type of christian needs to stop avoiding the issue and decide whether they can wholeheartedly accept what they believe (and become an asshole fundie) or whether they choose to reject some part of it (and become the third type of christian)

 

To the third type of christian: I agree with reading the Bible in historical context. This is only sane. Certainly a lot of the morality in there (or lack of it) can be placed in historical context and taken with a pinch of salt. But some of the theology is also suspect - and yet you try and explain it away. How can you explain away some of the theology of the Bible and still call yourself a christian? Isn't the spiritual message of it the real point of it? Perhaps it's time to wake up and realise that you don't really believe in this nonsense. that you have to explain away half of it to even accept it at all. Aren't there other religions that could possibly suit your needs better?

 

That's probably why people consider liberal christians to be intellectually dishonest.

 

But on the other hand - liberal christians are pretty decent people. I may not understand why they waste their time with something that has caused so much misery in the history of the world. I may not understand (even though I used to be one of them) how they can continue to get so much value out of something so suspect. I may not agree with them.

 

But decent people who believe kooky stuff that I can't understand and don't agree with - are still a million miles away from the fundie assholes that I hate - and the way liberal christians have been villified and harrassed by atheists on these boards always causes me distress.

 

Liberal christians are ok. Crazy - but ok Universalists are more than ok - I consider them allies.

 

In some ways I am as ashamed now to be associated with the more militant atheists as I was to be associated with the fundies when I was a christian.

[Antlerman]

I think you underestimate AM, Vigile, and many others by suggesting that somehow they suspend their usual good judgement and 'let O_M off' because she's 'popular'. Tut tut.

 

However, studying my own behaviour I am troubled that I let you off because well ... I sort of like you. I should have been much more robust in my response.

Is that what Grandpa was suggesting?? Please Gramps, if that's true you're a million miles off how I operate. I have always been the one to go against the stream in welcoming people here. In fact, I do believe that it was me that was instrumental in building that bridge with OM in her early days. So it wasn't popularity I was responding to. I'm sure OM will agree this is what happened. She earned my respect.

 

What's more than this, I also bridged the gap with Sojourner, a Christian, with Wishful, with Freeday, and quite a number of others who were swimming upstream when entering here. Some of them have left behind Christianity through this opening up of people to people in this community; others have broadened the respect for us and life in general through bridging gaps. I have also grown through these relationships. People have been helped by not pushing them out the door. I want to build bridges. It's my philosophy to do this. This is why I was so damned upset and resigned the other night when there was some Christian on board who was respectfully asking question, and you drove them off like so much filth.

 

You know, a lot of people come here looking for answers and aren’t ready to commit to anything, so if you care about helping people, take the harder, more difficult road of building bridges. It's amazing what happens when you do this. Sometimes by driving them off with hostility you're actually doing more harm to them. It's my belief that many come here challenging us because they are struggling for answers and need to be persuaded. Being an ass to them only drives them back and not forward.

 

When I do otherwise, I violate the very philosophies that I try to live by. I made a mistake at first with Wishful, but latter rectified my mistake and was nice to her. She left the Christian hell she was caught in through this experience. I built a bridge rather than pushing her away, and look what happened!! I really try to see the world through other eyes, that way I learn, I grow, I become more than me and my own thoughts. I'm just saying it would be nice if you cut some people some respect, then damn and jump at will if they show themselves to be unworthy if you wish. But it takes me a long, long time to come to that place with anyone. I think I've only pounded on two people here in my whole 3 plus years on this site.

 

I'm sorry to say this, but I have to. If you wish to disrespect this it’s your right. But I’m no friend if I don’t say this. I hope you at least accept my sincerity.

[Alice]

AM,

 

I should point out that Gramps did not 'name names' - he appeared to be suggesting that those that responded positively to O_M did so because she was popular, he may not have had you or Vigile in mind at all - I mentioned your names in particular as two who clearly do not take that sort of approach but had found O_M's contributions here to be valuable.

 

Alice

 

P.S - do not despair AM, this has been a great thread. Full of excellent conversation, a little heated in the middle but we all stuck with it and I for one have found it extremely valuable.

 

I particularly appreciated the exchanges with Deva. It was good for me to be reminded how different the world looks through different eyes.

[Alice]

Evo,

 

I find I agree strongly with your closing conclusions although I don't agree with everything you say enroute!

 

I see your third group somewhat differently. As this thread has evolved my understanding of liberal christianity has changed. I think your third group is probably two very separate groups that can look the same in terms of their behaviour but are very different in terms of their thinking and theology. One half, as you describe - believe a diluted form of literal christianity and are in the process of picking and choosing which parts they are going to keep and which part to abandon ... the other type have a completely different approach and belief system - in line with the conversations O_M has partcipated in on these boards.

[Evolution_beyond]

the other type have a completely different approach and belief system - in line with the conversations O_M has partcipated in on these boards.

 

But is that different approach and belief system really christianity? Or would it be better for them to acknowledge that what they believe is not christianity at all but would find a better home in a more universalist religion - hinduism perhaps, or some form of paganism, or some syncretist new age pantheism?

 

I suppose if they choose to call themselves christian and pin their lovely beliefs onto this Jesus character then it is their choice - and I wouldn't force the point home.

 

But I've been a universalist type of theist before and I realised very quickly that what I believed was no longer christianity strictly speaking and had more in common with other belief systems. It just seemed more honest to admit that and a lot less stressful to free myself of the label christian so that I could formulate my own fairly syncretic belief system without having to explain or justify things in the bible that I didn't agree with.

 

I can respect and admire universalism - but I don't think it totally squares with what's in the bible. It's not a point I'd waste too much energy in making because maybe it's not all that important - but it is a valid point nonetheless.

[Alice]

Once again, I pretty much agree with you ... I guess whether it is better to stick with the label or join the UU or something similar is a personal one - there are pros and cons with both options from where I am standing.

 

I can respect and admire universalism - but I don't think it totally squares with what's in the bible. It's not a point I'd waste too much energy in making because maybe it's not all that important - but it is a valid point nonetheless.

 

I still think the 'not squaring with the Bible' requires a particular view of how the Bible should be viewed in order to conclude that it doesn't square ... does that make sense?

 

I don't think the liberal christianity I have in mind holds that view of how to view the Bible.

[bush country]

The second type of christian needs to stop avoiding the issue and decide whether they can wholeheartedly accept what they believe (and become an asshole fundie) or whether they choose to reject some part of it (and become the third type of christian)

 

To the third type of christian: I agree with reading the Bible in historical context. This is only sane. Certainly a lot of the morality in there (or lack of it) can be placed in historical context and taken with a pinch of salt. But some of the theology is also suspect - and yet you try and explain it away. How can you explain away some of the theology of the Bible and still call yourself a christian? Isn't the spiritual message of it the real point of it? Perhaps it's time to wake up and realise that you don't really believe in this nonsense. that you have to explain away half of it to even accept it at all. Aren't there other religions that could possibly suit your needs better?

 

I agree with everything you say but just wanted to zero in on the above quote. Excellent points.

[Antlerman]

the other type have a completely different approach and belief system - in line with the conversations O_M has partcipated in on these boards.

 

But is that different approach and belief system really christianity? Or would it be better for them to acknowledge that what they believe is not christianity at all but would find a better home in a more universalist religion - hinduism perhaps, or some form of paganism, or some syncretist new age pantheism?

 

I suppose if they choose to call themselves christian and pin their lovely beliefs onto this Jesus character then it is their choice - and I wouldn't force the point home.

 

But I've been a universalist type of theist before and I realised very quickly that what I believed was no longer christianity strictly speaking and had more in common with other belief systems. It just seemed more honest to admit that and a lot less stressful to free myself of the label christian so that I could formulate my own fairly syncretic belief system without having to explain or justify things in the bible that I didn't agree with.

 

I can respect and admire universalism - but I don't think it totally squares with what's in the bible. It's not a point I'd waste too much energy in making because maybe it's not all that important - but it is a valid point nonetheless.

Hi EB. If I may jump in here? What really was/is Christianity? Christianity was/is certainly no static system of belief. Never has been. It's only church councils that tried to make it that, but even then it’s evolved and continues to evolve. To point to liberals and say "You're not a Christian" is no different really than a Baptist pointing to a Lutheran and saying they're no a real Christian. Shit, the Gnostics were accused of heresy and so were many other's who saw things differently. The "core" doctrines of original sin? Read this, I think you'll like it: http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/chri...st_pelagius.htm

 

Were they "Cherry Picking"? Hardly. I've said this for years that Liberals don't 'cherry pick'. Fundamentalists cherry pick. There is a huge difference between 'ignoring' parts of the Bible as the Fundi's do in trying to defend their doctrines, and taking an entirely different angle to how one approaches the Bible. It's not picking and choosing what's "accurate", but excusing away the bad bits. It's putting things into a context. If someone reads the Bible as containing spiritual truths that speak to them written by humans with many different ideas about culture, science and history, then to call it being intellectually dishonest is to frame it in the context that fundamentalists view it. It's not a case of literally true verses literally false, and to see anything in between makes you dishonest. It's a case of rising above that argument and seeing that it's a piece of literature that contains some valuable things, even if not everything within it is historically or scientifically factual. Is Homer's Oddesy? Does it have no value? It's moving beyond saying it IS the word of God, to saying it 'contains' the word of 'God', or words that speak to the spirit (God being a symbolic word of the "divine" in the human expression).

 

This is why I will not engage in arguing the "accuracy" of the Bible. It's a totally moot argument. It's not what it's about. It's human expression of ideas in the language of myth. Myth is not a lie. Myth is language. It's only our stupid culture and the damn literalists that somehow have been allowed to define it this way! Screw 'em. I would stop acknowledging them framing the argument like that. To say liberals are "cherry pickers" gives credence to a literalist perspective. The fundi's perspective is not credible. Liberals really, if not necessarily consciously, see the religion as something created by them, for them. This is what Christianity always has been from day one, until the Institution wrote in down in a Canon and called it stopped it from being a creation of people, and turned it into their Warden. This is why the religion itself has many pagan elements in it. People created it! So what if todays' Christianity takes on Eastern flavor. It's nothing new.

[Open_Minded]

Wow ... go away for a few hours and look what happens

 

Alice - your sanity and level headedness throughout this thread has meant much to me.

 

Antlerman - you're a dear friend...

 

Everyone else - I must tell you all - I've been away for so many months - I'd wondered about coming back to these boards with so many new faces.

 

It was nice to spar with Mr. Grinch - he's a good friend as well - and as usual - although we agreed on nothing we parted friends and promised to dance another time. But, I must say that thread started something and at the worst of it I had wondered if I did the right thing in coming back here. Things didn't seem as friendly and open as they had before ---- and now --- I come in here and read all this --- well ---- I've no words that could express my gratitude. All I can say - is thank you - I feel "at home" again - with all of you (whether we agree or not) you're a good bunch of folks and you give me a dimension to my life that I would not have otherwise. I do a better job in my volunteer interfaith work because of what I've learned here.

 

Thank you - thank you - thank you

[SWIM]

Pot calling kettle black? You're not short on words yourself, you bastard.

 

 

LOL Ruby, I love you too.

 

I wasn't trying to be my normal bastardly self, in fact I believe I said I had no problem with her. All I was stating, and I stand behind it, that basically CINO is a dead end street, and just a stage before the final shuckin of the religion. And hey, it's only my opinion, but I stand behind it, even put up a wager... (can't get much more sincere then that)

 

I don't think OM took me wrong, got a smile out of her in the end, it was not an attack, just discussion, basically my opinion.

 

AM yeah, I was too hard on the newbie CINO the other day, I know I was a bit rough. I don't make a habit of that, mostly my posts tend to be calmer then those two threads. Things like "I am here to share the *good news*", just really get my blood boiling, I really should calm down and take 5 before a post, might make for better PR I suppose.

 

PR is not my strong suite unfortunately...

[R. S. Martin]

Christianity, in all it's forms, seems to be a prosletyzing cult.

 

Is this a 'true' statement?

 

I promised to get back to this after our Winter Solstice party. There were three of us in the car. Me--the former Old Order Mennonite, the driver who has lived and taught English for thirty years in a highschool in a major town in the heart of Old Order Mennonite country, and a Russian-born college student who moved to Texas with his family at about age 10, and is now studying in a local university. I asked them your question. I couldn't think of the exact words you used and asked if there is any form of Christianity that does not evangelize. We had to decide on a definition for "evangelize" and settled for "actively convert."

 

I asked the driver whether anyone ever in all his years in that town ever tried to convert him and he said they used to ask if he goes to this or that church and his answer was always no. He thinks they eventually got it figured out. But no one seems to have tried to convert him. (He did not mention whether JWs ever came to his door; in my mind they don't really count because that is just what they do; I'm thinking about people approaching on the street, in stores, at work, etc.) There are more than a dozen denominations in that town. Some of them are: At least two different kinds of Mennonite, two different kinds of Lutheran, Apostolic, Presbyterian, United Church of Canada, Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Hall, Roman Catholic, Bible Chapel (Calvary type I think). I think I'm missing one or two. You get the picture; the place is swarming with Christians. Proselyzing seems not to be top priority. I worked for a JW family and had a JW driver at one time. Neither ever "witnessed" to me.

 

Now there are many forms of proselyzing. Going door to door like JWs or Mormons is one way, and the JWs in that town do that but I understand they don't go to people they know. Another form is talking to people wherever you meet them. That seems not to be the way things are done in that town. Yet another form is missions. I believe some of those churches support foreign missions. The Old Order Mennonite way is to use a distinct dress code, lifestyle, and means of transportation meant to separate them from the world while at the same time being a light to the world. This can at times attract questions with can lead to conversion. However, the hurdles for converts to cross are such that few manage, though there are a few who persist to learn the language and lifestyle.

 

The Old Order Mennonite way does not seem like actively converting people. In our conversation in the car, we concluded that there are forms of Christianity that do not actively convert: Amish, Old Order Mennonites, Hutterites, and similar groups. Liberal Christians were also mentioned, but our conversation did not touch on missions; I don't know whether or not liberal Christians have missions. I would guess it depends on the denomination. I think the primary form of proseletyzing we assumed was approaching people in public places to talk about their souls, and the liberal Christians our Texan knew aren't known to do that. (I mention the Texan because I would think if liberal Christians anywhere were in the habit of doing it they would do it in Texas. And it was the Texan who added the Liberal Christians to our list.)

 

That's the report from our conversation. We did not touch the "True Christian" question. We seemed to have the implicit agreement that anyone who professes to be Christian is Christian. The driver is a leader in the Humanist Association of Canada and writes regularly for Humanist Network News. He finds in his correspondence with American editors that here in Canada we have far more freedom as nonreligious people than do nonreligious people south of the border. The Texan did not comment on this. We did not discuss the British situation.

[Alice]

Were they "Cherry Picking"? Hardly. I've said this for years that Liberals don't 'cherry pick'. Fundamentalists cherry pick. There is a huge difference between 'ignoring' parts of the Bible as the Fundi's do in trying to defend their doctrines, and taking an entirely different angle to how one approaches the Bible. It's not picking and choosing what's "accurate", but excusing away the bad bits. It's putting things into a context. If someone reads the Bible as containing spiritual truths that speak to them written by humans with many different ideas about culture, science and history, then to call it being intellectually dishonest is to frame it in the context that fundamentalists view it. It's not a case of literally true verses literally false, and to see anything in between makes you dishonest. It's a case of rising above that argument and seeing that it's a piece of literature that contains some valuable things, even if not everything within it is historically or scientifically factual. Is Homer's Oddesy? Does it have no value? It's moving beyond saying it IS the word of God, to saying it 'contains' the word of 'God', or words that speak to the spirit (God being a symbolic word of the "divine" in the human expression).

 

This is why I will not engage in arguing the "accuracy" of the Bible. It's a totally moot argument. It's not what it's about. It's human expression of ideas in the language of myth. Myth is not a lie. Myth is language. It's only our stupid culture and the damn literalists that somehow have been allowed to define it this way! Screw 'em. I would stop acknowledging them framing the argument like that. To say liberals are "cherry pickers" gives credence to a literalist perspective. The fundi's perspective is not credible. Liberals really, if not necessarily consciously, see the religion as something created by them, for them. This is what Christianity always has been from day one, until the Institution wrote in down in a Canon and called it stopped it from being a creation of people, and turned it into their Warden. This is why the religion itself has many pagan elements in it. People created it! So what if todays' Christianity takes on Eastern flavor. It's nothing new.

 

Antlerman,

 

do you remember the conversation with NBBTL, O_M and a few others in which we talked about cherry picking? I am sure you do .... just wanted to say that in the course of this thread I FINALLY GOT IT! (I feel like Eliza Doolittle .. in fact, By jove ... I may start calling you calling Professor Higgins )

 

I find that after all this time, from time to time I still unearth in myself, residual literalist thinking, so for many years had regarded liberals as 'cherry pickers' because of my literalist thinking ... literalist thinking assumes that liberals will be thinking in the same way so thinks they see them 'picking and choosing' more cherries than the few they pick themselves and excuse away, when in fact the context is completely different. Liberal theology only looks like cherry picking if viewed through a literalism lens.

 

I've realised that there is a big difference between deconverting literalists who walk through liberalism (as I did), watering down their still literal thinking into something 'more acceptable' in society at large and the liberal theology you describe above AM.

 

Bush County and Evolution Beyond ... I think this is really worth looking into - I would have been saying exactly the same as you a little while back (it took me AGES to grasp the difference) in fact Bush County, I think it was your intervention in my struggle to explain myself to Deva that finally switched the light on for me.

 

The significance of 'literalism' has really come home to me. I think this better describes a lot of people who currently earn the label 'fundamentalist' - for me I think I may reserve the term 'fundamentalist' for unloving literalists and use 'literalist' for those who 'think like a fundamentalist' in terms of their approach to the Bible but are genuinely trying to be loving and thoughtful.

 

This has been such a good conversation for me!

 

p.s Come on Gramps - wont'cha tie up a few loose ends?

[Vigile]

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.

 

But we are mostly adults here. Surely we can look beyond labels alone and see that OM is not clinging to anything like the form of xianity that all of us have so many problems with. For me, I see her as no different from the deists on this forum. Her label is irrelivant.

 

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.

 

Exactly. I'm a died in the wool atheist myself. I see it as irrational to profer any form of deism without evidence. But these people are not threats to anyone as far as I can tell. I'm happy to let people believe whatever they want as long as they aren't pushing it down the throats of others. That includes atheists.

[Vigile]

Fundies are assholes. Worthy of about as much respect as the BNP or the Ku Klux Klan.

 

Liberal christians are reasonable, decent people who happen to believe in a lot of nonsense (imo)

 

So really there is no comparison.

 

Exactly. And you could also say:

 

Deists are reasonable, decent people who happen to believe in a lot of nonsense (imo)

 

Pantheists are reasonable, decent people who happen to believe in a lot of nonsense (imo)

 

Satanists are reasonable, decent people who happen to believe in a lot of nonsense (imo)

 

Etc...

 

But decent people who believe kooky stuff that I can't understand and don't agree with - are still a million miles away from the fundie assholes that I hate -

 

Yeah, what he said.

[Evolution_beyond]

Shit, the Gnostics were accused of heresy and so were many other's who saw things differently.

 

That's true. The gnostics were a very different type of christian.

 

I've said this for years that Liberals don't 'cherry pick'. Fundamentalists cherry pick. There is a huge difference between 'ignoring' parts of the Bible as the Fundi's do in trying to defend their doctrines, and taking an entirely different angle to how one approaches the Bible. It's not picking and choosing what's "accurate", but excusing away the bad bits. It's putting things into a context. If someone reads the Bible as containing spiritual truths that speak to them written by humans with many different ideas about culture, science and history, then to call it being intellectually dishonest is to frame it in the context that fundamentalists view it. It's not a case of literally true verses literally false, and to see anything in between makes you dishonest. It's a case of rising above that argument and seeing that it's a piece of literature that contains some valuable things, even if not everything within it is historically or scientifically factual. Is Homer's Oddesy? Does it have no value? It's moving beyond saying it IS the word of God, to saying it 'contains' the word of 'God', or words that speak to the spirit (God being a symbolic word of the "divine" in the human expression).

 

I agree with all of your points here. And you are right about fundies cherry picking.

 

It is definitely the correct approach to any ancient literature to take it in the context of its times. This might mean that some parts of it are not factually true and are actually allegorical in nature. This was a more mythological age when people often even thought in a mythological way rather than a literal way. History as we understand it today didn't even exist until the Greeks invented it, and there is still a world of difference between Greek critical history and modern critical history. Everything written in OT times had a theological bias to it. NT times were just as mythological an age, despite some Greeks and Romans pioneering the concept of critical historical writing. Obviously ethical ideas were very different then - and the bible was written by human beings after all.

 

Of course placing the bible in historical context is the only sane way to read it. But it's still true that there is a theological point being made by those bible writers. There is something that they are trying to say. And some of those core ideas include the idea of original sin and the idea of God making himself a sacrifice to save us from hell. These seem to be what the NT writers are claiming that christianity is all about. So when someone tries to argue away some of those ideas and still call themselves a christian - I quite sensibly question whether they really are a christian or are simply too scared to leave the fold for pastures new.

 

But maybe it is up to the liberal christians and Unitarian Universalists to explain to me what they think the christian message is all about. Because I must confess I am slightly confused.

 

And I used to be a liberal christian. But I think I was always searching and questioning key tenets of christianity - and so I wasn't being a hundred percent honest with myself when I continued to call myself a christian, even though I had torn apart large parts of the theology to fit my continually evolving beliefs.

 

Maybe I will start another thread asking liberals and universalists to explain to me what they think the christian message is. It might be illuminating.

[Grandpa Harley]

"It's not picking and choosing what's "accurate", but excusing away the bad bits."

 

There is then the debate as to whether there is a baby in the bath water, or just a tiny, wrinkly, bluing corpse bobbing about in there being prodded while someone tries to convince you it's alive...

 

The only part of the whole damned book that ever even resonated with me was the idea of Judas sitting outside Gethsemane, pondering whether he'd done the right thing, and even then that is my hanging flesh on the bones of the story... if you actually DON'T add to narrative, there isn't much there. It's not like Homer, where there is characterisation, it's a shadow play. Thus the concept of there being 'something deeper' there I don't see... there are no characters there of any depth. Unless you actually write your own story based on what is really a plot synopsis, there is nothing there. The emperor is naked and really, we're giving more reverence to the book than it deserves... what is deathless and mythic is really stuff added by us, and not in the tale. It's a glyph... but it really points to nothing, other than the meaning that one imputes to it... The mental Rorschachery needed to gain anything seems to be neglected in any discussion of the nature of the text. It's not a rich allegory, it's not a deep story, it's not even well constructed... its only redeeming feature is that you can make up anything you like to say about it and claim it's inspired by god, when an objective analysis of the text reveals it's not even a good puppet show.

 

Can someone show me something de profundis?

[Open_Minded]

Of course placing the bible in historical context is the only sane way to read it. But it's still true that there is a theological point being made by those bible writers. There is something that they are trying to say. And some of those core ideas include the idea of original sin and the idea of God making himself a sacrifice to save us from hell. These seem to be what the NT writers are claiming that christianity is all about. So when someone tries to argue away some of those ideas and still call themselves a christian - I quite sensibly question whether they really are a christian or are simply too scared to leave the fold for pastures new.

Hello E_O...

 

It just depends on the way you look at it - that's all..... For instance....

 

• Original Sin - first of all that seed was planted with Paul. You'd be hard pressed to say that every leader of the early Christian movements agreed with Paul. And even then - it was a seed he planted . Augustinian picked the seed up 100s of years later and developed it into an orthodox theology. Again - reading things in context.
   
  
• Also: "sin" was viewed differently in the culture of Jesus than it is viewed today (post Augustinian theology). "Sin" in the culture of Jesus was more "missing the mark" than this grave "original sin" where the heart of man is eternally evil - that we think of today. You may want to hunt up some books by Neil Douglas-Klotz - or check out this post from another discussion I had with AM and Alice: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=128579
  
• The idea of God making himself a sacrifice - again - see the above link. But, basically I accept that people of Jesus' time and culture may have interpreted the cross this way - but I don't feel the need (in 2007) to be tied to ancient interpretations. I see the cross as a vicarious sacrifice - and again the link above will expand on this.
  

 

In general - I see the Bible as an ancient record of the search for the SACRED. That is why there are so many differing views in the Bible - humanity has been searching for the SACRED since the beginning of self-awareness.

 

The Bible is a compilation of writings from many authors, many oral traditions over the span of a few thousand years. It couldn't possible be read in any other way than to honestly acknowledge, recognize and accept this fact (well it can be read another way and it often is - but that doesn't make it intellectually appropriate).

 

For me, the Bible is one record of this search for the Sacred. It is not the only record - I also recognize ancient sacred literatures from other cultures - I also recognize the oral traditions of Native American cultures and other ancient cultures with no written language.

 

But maybe it is up to the liberal christians and Unitarian Universalists to explain to me what they think the christian message is all about. Because I must confess I am slightly confused.

In essence - I don't think there is one central "Christian message". I believe the only thing all Christians would be able to say together is, "I am a follower of Christ". From there - views will widely vary, beginning with views about who/what this "Christ" is.

 

That's the whole thing - Christianity is a reflection of the people who profess it - for good or for bad. Christianity does not stand alone - it was created by people, for people. That is one place where literalists and I part paths - they see Christianity as a Divine institution. I see Christianity as one of the many human expressions of this "search for the SACRED" that I was talking about earlier. Sorry - I can't give you something more concise - but that is the reality of 34,000 expressions of something called "Christianity".