What do you think of liberal Christians, and how do you deal with them?

[Vomit Comet]

Do they really give free donuts? :happy_old:

[Neon Genesis]

"Why can't we all just get along? Here, have a donut!"

But everyone loves donuts! Never underestimate the power of a jelly-filled donut.

[Antlerman]

To Antlerman:

 

So what do you say to a truly liberal Christian? Probably nothing relevant to how they think if you're coming at it as thinking the Bible is "God's literal Word," but the stories are meant to be taken as figurative words. In other words that "God" intended it to be interpreted a certain way. Questions of "accuracy" are irrelevant to a liberal, symbolic thinker. Questions of meaning and response are really the issues. You may ask, "How can it have meaning if it is false data?" But that's an irrelevant way of looking at it. It has value to them because it inspires through the power of rich, figurative, non-literal words - like a poem. "God's Word" to them, would not literally mean some guy in the sky dictating words, but words that inspire them with thoughts that "God" represents.

That’s been my experience also. They are not so much concerned with, “Did this really happen and did it happen the way it is described?” as much as they are concerned with, “What does this mean?” But, IMO, a problem enters here because meaning has to come from some source. If the source is nonexistent or ambiguous, then how can any meaning be ascertained? If I were to say, “My love is a red rose,” something would have to be known about a red rose in order to understand the meaning of my metaphor. If there is no such thing as a literal red rose, then my metaphor is meaningless nonsense. I have equated my love with something which does not exist. And this is the problem of the liberal paradigm, it seeks to extract meaning from things that it believes did not exist.

Yes and no. A rose being a real thing that had added meaning applied to it (Sausser’s signifier plus signified referent – I’m assuming you’re familiar with semiotics by your choice of reference), is relevant to your argument only in that we know what a rose is. That we don’t however know what a Christ is, and least not in that we meet them on the street every other day, is not really a factor in reduces its symbolism. It’s the same with a god, or an angel, or some other transcendent entity. We in fact do reference a god, or God, with very specific culture signification all the time, never actually meeting a real god, or Christ, or Easter Bunny. That’s extremely apparent by the fact of its use in our culture. In fact those who oppose the idea of God know full well what it signifies, and are reacting to that signification strongly in many cases.

 

Iconoclasm is the smashing of cultural icons. The icon is not a real thing, but the signification of it is. By smashing the icon, you smash or attack the idea. God is an icon. The flag is an icon. There are symbols of ideals. It’s those ideals that are real, and the symbols are what we look to as “real”; whether you are for or against that ideal.

 

One brief point to make here that supports this is to make mention of the reaction of people who hear you don’t believe in God. Typically, from your average citizen, this is met with dismay and near disgust, in that they see this as you essentially saying you don’t believe in Family, Country, Community, Love, Charity, etc. God is a symbol of tangible ideals in their lives, and hearing you say “I don’t believe in God” is translated to mean you reject those ideals.

 

So… yes it does have significance, despite the fact that God is purely a symbol with no earthly, natural basis. In fact, it’s exactly for that reason that it has more power than the rose.

 

The infamously liberal Jesus Seminar holds to the opinion that 85% of the sayings/teachings of Jesus in the New Testament were not the actual words of Jesus, but, rather, the words of the early church superimposed upon Jesus. This may or may not be true, who knows? A few of them don’t even believe that Jesus ever existed. But then to spend a great deal of time, as liberals are prone to do, on the “teachings of Jesus” is quite irrelevant, IMO. It is like arguing about what color Santa’s suit really is. Such a debate would only be meaningful to those who believed Santa really exists.

I don’t see it this way. I don’t see it as irrelevant as arguing the color of Santa’s suit, or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The reason why it’s not irrelevant is because behind mythology is the humanity and society that drove it. It’s a look into ourselves. It’s our story as humans. It’s what we were choosing to say in metaphor and myth. It’s also history. It’s a record of how we saw ourselves and the language we chose to say this with.

 

To dismiss it as nonsense is to do, how can I say this without causing a furor? It’s like devaluing the artifacts of the past that we don’t see as relevant and smashing them to oblivion because they don’t fit our ideas of the present! That’s tragic in its own right. The reference that comes to mind would cause great offense to mention. But it has to do with thousand year old statues blown up with rocket launchers within the last 15 years because they were considered of no value and contrary to the ideals of a particular society.

 

It's an adopted symbolic language system of rich content for the purpose of human inspiration.

Maybe so. Symbolism is a powerful language, often stirring our emotions in a way that facts alone cannot. For many Americans, the national flag is an inspirational symbol. It reminds them, not only of national ideals and dreams, but of those who actually died defending those ideals and dreams. But with the liberal paradigm, they would want to talk about the ideals and dreams and count the historical data of lives lost as being inconsequential or irrelevant. How can one talk about the meaning of the flag without referring to the historical basis that makes our flag still relevant?

With most of this you and I are on the same page. What I don’t get is the reference to seeing the negatives as “inconsequential or irrelevant”. I’m not sure I agree with this entirely. I don’t think anyone who uses powerful symbols to motivate are always necessarily denying the past. Think about it. For instance, would you choose to say to your significant other, “I love you with every fiber of my being, my essence, with their very breath of life that is within me - of course being honest with you, despite those times I was thinking impure thoughts about that beautiful woman down the street instead of you, and the time I lit that cat on fire as a messed up adolecent.” Kind of kills it, doesn’t it?

 

Is this “dishonesty”? Or do we humans choose to focus on the ideal of the moment and express that idealistically for the benefits derived? Realism kills, in these sorts of moments. Realism has its place to be sure. But humans are more that pragmatists! Much more! We are creative and imaginative. We are the Creators of heaven and hell. Myths by which we live or die by.

 

...Splitting the post over two to get past the quote limits......

[Antlerman]

I think the difficulty actually is more with those who are so immersed with the language of science and reason that they forgot how to see the world non-literally

I, for one, am glad to get away from the “non-literal” view of the world in which superstition ran rampant over the last 6000 years. Epilepsy was caused by demons. Sickness and disease was a result of sin. Weather was attributed to the hand of God. God needed human blood to be satiated. Science and reason is helping us to get past such superstition. I have no desire nor inclination to go back to a worldview in which the world is God’s playground/battlefield with Satan. At least fundamentalist can be shown that they are inconsistent in their views by using their own bible to educate them, if they are so willing. The falacies of Christianity are hard to demonstrate to liberals because they reject the major tenets of historical Christianity anyway.

Again, yes and no. Of course superstition should be replaced with reason. That’s a given. But at the same token, we’ve taken science and reason and pushed imagination and creativity to the realm of something to be derided and scorned. That I consider to be a mistake. I believe that to think symbolically does not mean we have to abandon reason. But to elevate reason to the point of exclusion of symbolic imagination and inspiration is to be as guilty of diminishing “reason” as the superstitious are in denying science and rational inquiry as important to our humanity. What I see is a religious war where neither side tries to understand the humanity that drives both.

 

As far as liberals rejecting major tenets of historical Christianity, well if they don’t view tradition and doctrine as “authoritative”, then that sort of makes it all moot, doesn’t it?

 

Long story short, not everyone thinks literally, and those who turned to fundamentalism in the first place probably are more prone to literal, concrete, "true/false" thinking.

I think this is true. At the same time, the writers of the scripture, though sometimes using figurative language, definitely held to a literal, concrete, “true/false” paradigm of seeing reality. Again, the problem with the liberal worldview is that it tries to package Christianity as a Porsche when it is really a VW underneath. It tries to reinterpret Christianity in modern or post-modern terms when Christianity itself is rooted in ancient superstition.

I don’t think this is fair to say. Is it “superstition”, or simply a framework of religious language to describe the world with – much like we use scientific language to describe the world with today? The value of the language really depends on what you are trying to accomplish. And that’s my point about the language of myth and poetry. You don’t build a particle accelerator using a poem by Yeats, do you? But is Yeats, worthless crap that has no value???

 

What are you trying to build? What are you trying to express? Would you use math to tell your partner you loved them, or would you cite poetry, metaphor, myth, and music? A rose? A reference to a non-natural entity, like “an angel”??? You see my point?

 

The problem with fundamentalists is they would take Yeats, and say his words were scientific reality!

 

Jesus was one of the most superstitious religious leaders of all. He believed in a literal six day creation, in the barbaric laws of Moses, and in a literal hell. Paul believed that children are born into this world literally damned for hell because of original sin. And he believed that women should literally keep their mouths shut in church.

Well I actually don’t believe this. I see a reading of a 20th/21st century way of thinking back into the 1st Century. I believe that the writers who made the Jesus character say these things were speaking to an understanding of the world of the time in the language of myth, much like science fulfills that same roll in our world today (myth in the sense of language in how we frame a description of the world with). A “literal” six day creation is completely, only relevant to our world, not the 1st Century. Its significance in how they used it is not comparable to today. You can’t judge the past from your vantage point of today. You have to try to evaluate it in the context of their understanding of the world, in order to judge – or try to understand them.

 

If literalism is removed from Christianity, if all the conservative, fundamentalist bathwater is thrown out, then the baby Jesus goes with it. When I was a liberal, discarding everything in the bible that didn’t fit into my “God is love” view, I found that there was nothing left to hold onto. Even Jesus, with his threats of everlasting torment, couldn’t fit into “God is love.” And without Jesus, how can one call one’s self a Christian?

You do realize that fundamentalism is the by-product, the later creation of mainstream xtianity? No, I don’t agree that Christianity is dependent on fundamentalism or the conservative elements of it.

 

Let’s look at some statistics. There are 2.1 Billion Christians in the world. 350 million of those are Protestant. Of those who are Protestant, a much smaller number are conservative evangelicals, and even fewer fundamentalists. See here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost...p;postcount=315 So from those numbers alone, it is unreasonable to suggest that to abandon fundamentalist ideas of Christianity is to dismantle what makes the religion tick for your average Joe. Your average Joe doesn’t take this stuff in the same twisted light as the fundi does. What I said before about approaching the liberal with a fundamentalist mindset applies.

 

But I also have to say that from a functional and pragmatic viewpoint, I see little difference between a liberal Christian and a good humanist. I tend to think that liberals are simply atheist without balls.

The first part I pretty much agree with, nearly whole-heartedly in fact. The last bit I don’t agree with. I think that is viewing them in light of a literalist point of view of the world, one that see’s life in a binary sort of way: true/false (no offense meant).

 

These are just a few thoughts along these lines. Not that I’m suggesting anything that is “right”, of course. I for one can appreciate many forms of music, if it is not taken as the Only Music ™. That applies to religion and secular “beliefs”. I see both as the same thing. Behind both is our humanity, and that’s what fascinates me beyond “whose right?”. Neither/Both.

[ogilvy]

when i was a fundamentalist christian, liberal christians used to upset me because of what i thought to be their illogical thinking. For instance they are fond of saying that all religions are about the same God. That can't be right, because the different religions are contradictory, eg. 'Jesus is the only way', 'there are many gods'. if Jesus is the only way, then none of the other reigions can be true. if any of the others are true, Jesus can't be the only way.

 

another thing, if they don't think the bible is completely the Word of God, if some of it is myth, some originates in the mnds of fallible men, how would anyone know which parts were from God? it'd be guesswork and speculation., it'd be just people's opinions. it wouldnt be folliowing God, it'd be following one's own or other people's ideas. no point in it. well there might be a point, but no point in calling it 'following Jesus', which was my idea of what being a christian was.

 

And if our only knowledge of Jesus and the heaven of Jesus, the Father of Jesus, is from the bible, and if the bible is only true in parts, and we dont know which parts, there no way to really know what God wants or is like. again, guesswork.

 

i think some people want to have a religion but dont actually believe in the biblical one, so they try to follow a different form of christianity, which doesnt really work or make sense. well, it only works if they dont think it trhough, llike fundamental christianity.

 

Maybe theres pressure to have a religion, but in my country theres not. i keep hearing that in the USA thres like a stigma to being an atheist, but here its the opposite. to be a fundamental christian is to be a bit of a freak, a bit embarassing, even in church circles, except the fundamentalist ones of course.

 

If i was mingling with liberal christians now, i would keep quiet about it. i can see where they're coming from. i miss having a faith, myself. i used to feel good thinking i would go to heaven, i didnt mind getting old and dying.

I had a silly thought lately, 'why couldnt i just still believe i'm going to heaven?? i can believe that if i want to, and then i'd feel better' Dunno if it'll work or not. I've given up on 'seeking the truth', so it won't matter to kid myself, maybe.

[Antlerman]

And if our only knowledge of Jesus and the heaven of Jesus, the Father of Jesus, is from the bible, and if the bible is only true in parts, and we dont know which parts, there no way to really know what God wants or is like. again, guesswork.

I don't mean to belabor my points, but I'm having a hard time trying to communicate what I see. In what you say here it illustrates it. "Which parts are true and which aren't". That's what I mean by approaching it with a literal mindset. That question is a non-question to most liberals. It's not a case of cherry picking true or good bits, it's more a matter of a case of what has value symbolically. It's seen as all a work of humans, by the word "God" is applied to those things which speak to them.

 

Example, something can be literally false, while figurative true. The story behind the story, so to speak. That's why I'm arguing that it's more a case of not being able to take advantage of that sort of system for some people because of the sort of non-linear approach to it. It's not at all in the same category as a fundamentalist. In fact fundamentalism was born out of a negative response to exactly this sort of thinking of modernity in religious thought. They're really opposites. It's not a "watered down version".

 

i think some people want to have a religion but dont actually believe in the biblical one, so they try to follow a different form of christianity, which doesnt really work or make sense. well, it only works if they dont think it trhough, llike fundamental christianity.

Or they don't think like a fundamentalist at all. From what I've seen it's hard for it to make sense to a fundamentalist, or an ex-fundamentalist precisely because it's a different thought mode altogether.

 

There are those who adopt Wicca after fundamentalism, but in many case they just transfer the literalistic mindset to that system too, rather than using it as pure, non-literal symbolism.

 

Maybe theres pressure to have a religion, but in my country theres not. i keep hearing that in the USA thres like a stigma to being an atheist, but here its the opposite. to be a fundamental christian is to be a bit of a freak, a bit embarassing, even in church circles, except the fundamentalist ones of course.

 

If i was mingling with liberal christians now, i would keep quiet about it. i can see where they're coming from. i miss having a faith, myself. i used to feel good thinking i would go to heaven, i didnt mind getting old and dying.

I had a silly thought lately, 'why couldnt i just still believe i'm going to heaven?? i can believe that if i want to, and then i'd feel better' Dunno if it'll work or not. I've given up on 'seeking the truth', so it won't matter to kid myself, maybe.

You've touched on something I want to talk about in a separate topic later.

[bubbleloulicious]

To me (and I am only guessing here), it seems like liberal Christianity is a testing ground. Their ranks are shrinking because one event is happening and two results come out of it. The one event is (in my opinion) that people are beginning to see liberal Christianity for what it is. They see that it is not squarely based on the Bible but more upon tradition or good works, etc. As a result of this conflict (the Bible verses the teachings withing the liberal church) the individual will then start to examine the Bible to see what it says. This will lead them to one of two conclusions (in most cases): 1) the Bible is the literal word of god and, thus, it must be followed literally or 2) the Bible is full of it and must be forsaken. Option #1 may cause the individual to leave the liberal church and go to a more conservative or fundamental church where the Bible is given more respect and adhered to more literally. Option #2 may cause the individual to leave the faith all together and live more like a secular free thinker.

 

Not exactly, but maybe close. There is little to prevent a liberal christian from being a member of a fundamentalist congregation. Never did I attend a liberal christian church. I left fundamentalism behind me over thirty years ago. I find that I began to be drawn to a simpler humanistic-type of thinking over the past few years or so. What made me want to separate from christianity was/is that I began to see a certain anti-human, almost a hatred of the human experience, that I was seeing in so many people.

 

Where exactly this desire to separate is going to take me, I'm uncertain. But, I think it is right.

 

But, that is just me. I would never consider myself to be representative of all liberal christians.

[trekkie]

To Antlerman:

 

Thanks for your well-thought-out responses, Keith. There is so much in these last couple of posts that I would like to respond to in-depth. I think I’ll first post a brief overall response to you and then, without belaboring each point and boring the forum to death, post very brief responses to your individual points in a subsequent post.

 

In brief, let me say this: I see nothing wrong with myth AS LONG AS we see it as myth. Myth is a powerful way for us to tell the stories of our human journeys. Myths put a human face on the knowledge and experiences that we have had through the centuries as semi-sentient beings. Myths anthropomorphize our concepts, ideas, and ideals so that, hopefully, the very best of what it means to be human is carried on to subsequent generations. We always remember good stories better than we remember lists of facts. But when myths are treated as either historical fact or science, then problems of believability arise. In particular, when the myths behind Christianity become “creation science” or “intelligent design” or “doctrine” or “creed”, then because we “know better”, we risk losing the knowledge, experiences, and truths encroached in these myths.

 

The fundies (and I believe both Jesus and Paul) see these myths as historical or ontological fact. You are correct, Keith, that fundamentalism is a fairly recent theological framework, a reaction to the Enlightenment where a small sect of Christianity decided to take the great myths of Christianity and turn them into facts or literal history. But the fundies have been the most vocal about their paradigm and the threat to Christianity grew from within, not from without. Being a humanist, I would love to teach my children (ages 12 and 9) of the myths of Christianity. But my wife, a Southern Baptist, wants these myths taught as fact. And therein lies the rub for me.

 

I am not at all for throwing out these myths, just as I would not be for destroying ancient Ptolemaic maps of the universe or ancient charts of a world with no American continent. I would value these relics for what they were and are, ancient ways of looking at reality, done to the best of their ability at the time. But neither would I use them today to plot a mission to Mars or to sail to India. Their value is not so much in showing us the way forward as to remind us of our past and that we should remain humble in the face of further knowledge.

 

Liberal/progressive Christianity, I believe, tries to recapture the Christian myths, to take these sacred stories back from the fundies so that we don’t lose them due to irrelevance. In one sense, I applaud them for desiring to keep these myths in our culture, not as science or as literal history, but as the sacred stories that they are. This is, I think, worthy. The danger of modernity is believing that all the ancients were completely wrong and we, as moderns, now know everything.

 

On the other hand, liberal Christianity has “attacked” these myths with the tools of modern science and epistemology. Liberalism has done a good job of deconstructing these myths to prove, indeed, that they are neither science nor historical fact. But it has done little in reconstruction to help us learn, as moderns, how to value and preserve the myth AS MYTH. Liberalism does a decent job, if anyone is paying attention to it, to show why the fundies are wrong. But it does little to show what is worth keeping in the ancient tradition that is Christianity.

 

On a personal note, I attended an Episcopal church for a couple of years. I absolutely loved the progressive view that their theology put forward, the acceptance of science and reason as a means of further human progress (rather than of fear and superstition). But their worship services were so “ancient” in form and ritual that they did nothing for me. Now, I don’t mean to say that going to church is all about me. I know better (I hope). But while their theology was progressive, their liturgy was, to me, offensive. Reciting the creeds, going through communion, using the liturgical calendar. Their form of worship denied the theology behind it. Though their theology said, “Jesus showed us how to be more fully human”, their liturgy said, “Jesus died as a sin offering to an angry God.”

 

It perplexes me, Keith. Here is a form of liberal Christianity that could actually help that religion to stay relevant to our culture and it has its altars dripping with blood and a human sacrifice to an wrathful deity. When the mythology of Christ is presented as fact, I am repulsed by it.

 

Okay, enough of my ramblings on this.

 

I’ll try to offer you short responses in my next post.

Regards,

Bill

[trekkie]

To Antlerman:

 

Please see my prior post if you have not done so.

 

>>That we don’t however know what a Christ is, and least not in that we meet them on the street every other day, is not really a factor in reduces its symbolism. It’s the same with a god, or an angel, or some other transcendent entity. We in fact do reference a god, or God, with very specific culture signification all the time, never actually meeting a real god, or Christ, or Easter Bunny.

 

In the first century, there were very definite ideas about what “a Christ” is and who “God” is. The problem was, there were a lot of different definite ideas also. Some expected Christ to be a holy warrior, some expected a king, some expected a sin sacrifice. The scriptures are not at all myopic on the subject of Christ and God. And neither is today's Christianity.

 

>>The icon is not a real thing, but the signification of it is. God is an icon.

 

True. According to the bible, one of the first things God told Israel when he gave them the 10 commandments is not to make or worship icons. But Christianity does this very thing. It turns its interpretation of God into the ONLY TRUE interpretation of God. And anyone who rejects this icon is threatened with hell.

 

>>God is a symbol of tangible ideals in their lives, and hearing you say “I don’t believe in God” is translated to mean you reject those ideals.

 

Yes, God is an American…and Republican too! Didn’t you know that?

 

>>What I don’t get is the reference to seeing the negatives as “inconsequential or irrelevant.”

 

Liberals typically say it doesn’t matter if creation was 6 literal days or not; it doesn’t matter whether Jesus performed miracles or not; it doesn’t matter if Jesus was resurrected or not; it doesn’t matter that Jesus was wrong about his return. They dismiss the “facts” embedded in the myth because we now “know better”, but the myths are gutted. So we are left with, what, a social club? Granted, we are social creatures. We grow (or should) as communities. But I would think, and I know I could just be full of shit, that a good religion would encourage us to be more transcendent than what we are. Not in living forever on Alpha Centauri, but in maturing as a species. Personally, I don’t think science does a very good job in this area either. Despite all our technology, we could easily blow ourselves to Kingdom Come. We don’t need more smarts, we need more wisdom. I just doubt it is going to come from Christianity because Christianity, as a religion, has ALWAYS been demeaning human life rather than extoling it.

 

>>We’ve taken science and reason and pushed imagination and creativity to the realm of something to be derided and scorned. That I consider to be a mistake.

 

As do I. But, as I’ve said, I think it is important to recognize the “imagination and creativity” of the past as exactly that, not as science. Their imagination and creativity was not based upon the scientific method, it was based upon an authoritarian figure with promises of rewards and threats of punishment ensuing.

 

>>I believe that to think symbolically does not mean we have to abandon reason.

 

And vice versa. It is turning the symbols into idols that bothers me.

 

>>I don’t think this is fair to say. Is it “superstition”, or simply a framework of religious language to describe the world with – much like we use scientific language to describe the world with today?

 

That’s a good question, Keith. Granted, it is easy to respond, “Why, of course, it was ‘simply a framework of religious language to describe the world’.” But let’s not forget, my friend, that people were KILLED for not buying into or countering this “framework.” To me, superstition elicits fear. Superstition causes us to recoil in fear of the unknown. Good religion, if there is such a thing, would cause us to seek out the unknown. That is what I love about science. I know that, strictly speaking, science is not a religion. But it calls to me to come closer, to learn more, to be more than I am. In the religion that I have known, God says, “Stay back. You are worthless. I’m a mystery. To know Me would kill you.” That is, to me, more than a framework of religious language, it is a means of keeping people ignorant and existing in fear.

 

>>You can’t judge the past from your vantage point of today. You have to try to evaluate it in the context of their understanding of the world, in order to judge – or try to understand them.

 

I agree…up to a point. The historical/critical method of liberalism, while being derided by fundies who believe the bible is “God’s very words of truth to all mankind of all time”, has helped us greatly to get into the minds (and worldviews) of the authors of the scriptures. But we have to critique the past if we are to learn from it, don’t we? I don’t mean to label them as stupid or, as fundies would do to the Catholics, to condemn them all to hell. I mean to give them “their space” to live and speak from their worldview without insisting that THEIRS become OURS.

 

>>You do realize that fundamentalism is the by-product, the later creation of mainstream xtianity? No, I don’t agree that Christianity is dependent on fundamentalism or the conservative elements of it.

 

Of course I do. But I disagree that Christianity is not dependent upon the fundies. They are the most outspoken, control most of the “Christian” media, and own the “Christian bookstores.” Try finding liberal Christianity in a “Christian bookstore.” Spong doesn’t even want his books sold there. Attendance at mainline and liberal churches is falling off, Keith. The fundie churches are growing. I think this is because though the liberal churches may have what could be called a “better theology”, they have no way to translate the Christian myth into practical meaning for our culture. If I want something that appeals to my desire to be transcendent, I’d rather look through a telescope than go to church.

 

>>Your average Joe doesn’t take this stuff in the same twisted light as the fundi does.

 

I suspect that is because “average Joe” goes to church out of tradition and habit, not out of some sort of question for truth or meaning in life. Face it, Keith, most "Christians" go to church (whether Protestant or Catholic), not to make themselves and this world a better place, but to escape the threat of hell. They wouldn't be so eager to continually confess their sins if hell were not a threat. Christianity is, at heart, a self-centered religion.

 

>> These are just a few thoughts along these lines. Not that I’m suggesting anything that is “right”, of course. I for one can appreciate many forms of music, if it is not taken as the Only Music ™. That applies to religion and secular “beliefs”. I see both as the same thing. Behind both is our humanity, and that’s what fascinates me beyond “whose right?”.

 

Good thoughts, Keith. I feel much the same. I’m not so much concerned with epistemology. I don’t much care “who is right and who is wrong” in the Christian battle. Rather, I’m interested in what, if anything, about the Christian religion is life-affirming, encouraging us to grow, to (and I know how cliché this sounds) love one another (or be more compassionate). And I’m not too convinced that I see much about these things from either side of Christianity. The Episcopal churches here in Texas do little more than fight over the gay issue. My no-god, with world hunger, disease, lack of decent health care, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, failure to respond to natural disasters, and endless war, all the liberals can do is to argue over who is having sex with who? It is no wonder, as Spong says, many are becoming members of “The Church Alumni Association.”

 

Regards,

bill

[Antlerman]

I'm not feeling too well tonight so this will be brief. (It shows how much I enjoy this level of discussion on this topic. There's a great deal to examine in this and I look forward to continuing this dialog with you of perspectives and thoughts. I will say here too that if Pitchu, the moderator of this forum area sees it fit to split this growing discussion off into another area outside the testimonies area, I wouldn't be opposed to that. She can notify me and I can set that up. I'm going with this here for now as it sort of evolved here and others have expressed the thought of keeping it here).

 

Briefly, and I'll resume my thoughts to the rest later....

 

 

>>You do realize that fundamentalism is the by-product, the later creation of mainstream xtianity? No, I don’t agree that Christianity is dependent on fundamentalism or the conservative elements of it.

 

Of course I do. But I disagree that Christianity is not dependent upon the fundies. They are the most outspoken, control most of the “Christian” media, and own the “Christian bookstores.” Try finding liberal Christianity in a “Christian bookstore.” Spong doesn’t even want his books sold there. Attendance at mainline and liberal churches is falling off, Keith. The fundi churches are growing. I think this is because though the liberal churches may have what could be called a “better theology”, they have no way to translate the Christian myth into practical meaning for our culture. If I want something that appeals to my desire to be transcendent, I’d rather look through a telescope than go to church.

I mentioned elsewhere before that fundamentalism is a symptom of a failing middle. It's a sign that mainstream, social Christianity, is failing to adapt as is imploding. Christians in the middle are moving over to the more conservative, Evangelical churches because frankly they're becoming the only show in town, and these folks aren't ready to give up their connection with culture through religion. We don't have some good old secular churches because the social conservatives have been so activist since the late 60's on through the 80's, on through the last few years in pushing out those who have more progressive and liberal social views. They co-opted the church for their social agendas, and literally created the humanist surge in the 80's, which were essentially displaced secular Christians. A harsh truth that jars the mind is to say that atheism in the West, is essentially secular Christians: Christians by virtue of growing up in the West with the basic Christian ethos, and secular in so much as they have all the good parts of Christianity, the "Jesus on a good day" message of love and charity, yet without the adherence to belief in the supernatural.

 

As the Evangelical's huge political mechanism and marketing army went after the mainstream by building huge mega churches offering day care, home services, etc, etc they sort of took over. However... there are vast amounts of people who attend this monstrosities who are deeply opposed to the political, republican, right wing rhetoric of this. A shift from within is happening, as can be witnessed by the very ousting of that leadership in the Southern Baptist churches that started the Christian Right thing back in the 80's. I can provide some supporting articles for this.

 

My point is that the religion that is Christianity is, ultimately a product of the culture. Right now it is what it is, but probably, just a thought I'm having in light of this above, the worst thing they did is go after the middle. They can always find a place on the edges of society for the more conservative, less critical of society, but when they went after the middle, they brought in the real power base of society where they won't be able to stop the influence that comes from the center. They can't effectively get them to shut off their thinking and let them take control forever. Once the middle calls it home, then it will evolve, just as Christianity has done from its very inception.

 

In other words, Christianity is not dependent on fundamentalist, it's depending on it be keep alive by society. One society adopts it, it will change it and no fundi can stop it. Christianity is dependent on people being able to find a way to make it work for them, not fundamentalists controlling it. They're weak delusional fools who think they can control it once it moves out of the right into the middle.

 

So the failing middle... the middle fails for a host of reasons, especially here in the States. Some of that has to do with Christianity here being handed down to us through our immigrant forefathers trying to have a Christianity of the old world, with it's hundreds of years of change and permanence in Europe, transposed here into the New World, never really having the deep flavor of the past engrained into its society. That along with new fangled ideas coming in from out East, along with various movements and a growing interest in spiritualism, etc, etc. In short, we were a big, volatile mixing pot of ideas in a rapidly changing culture. Out of this comes fundamentalism.

 

So is there any hope for progression in religion to where it serves as a social coming together place for those of a common culture who hold common values, yet without the arm twisting of some supernatural manipulation over the people from the pulpit? Hard to say, but I think that our deep social illnesses as a culture, are due to the more highly religious who let their worship of conservative ideals blind them to the reality of humanity. Societies which are secular, which have a greater instance of society through things like secular churches, in fact have higher rates of social health than we have. It's not the "religious" idea that is the fact, but the social factor.

 

It's the community that is lost here, both for those who have rejected Christianity itself such as us, and for those within those Churches here also. Even though they go, they are not coming as equals, but slaves to the doctrines of those who control the Bibles. Those whose leadership is far from qualified. It would be my argument they should have to take long history classes, psychology, anthropology, sociology, archeology, philosophy, biology, and then spend years visiting and talking with people like us, before they are even considered to stand behind a pulpit and offer thoughts about how to live to our society. They are nothing but social conservatives with God as their screwdriver for their ideologies cloaked under the name of God. It’s precisely for this reason I backed out of the ministry in their world. They weren’t about understanding and helping, they were about their ideologies and being right.

 

Alright, for not feeling well I couldn't stop myself, so I will here. I'll try to pick up my thoughts later.

[Vomit Comet]

Let’s look at some statistics. There are 2.1 Billion Christians in the world. 350 million of those are Protestant. Of those who are Protestant, a much smaller number are conservative evangelicals, and even fewer fundamentalists. See here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost...p;postcount=315 So from those numbers alone, it is unreasonable to suggest that to abandon fundamentalist ideas of Christianity is to dismantle what makes the religion tick for your average Joe. Your average Joe doesn’t take this stuff in the same twisted light as the fundi does. What I said before about approaching the liberal with a fundamentalist mindset applies.

 

You have to measure religiosity, or those numbers are more or less meaningless. The tongue-talking foaming-at-the-mouth flopping-like-a-fish Charismatic who goes to church fourteen times a week is much more fanatical and serious about this stuff than the guy who's practically an agnostic in all but name and realization, only goes to church for weddings and funerals (forget about Christmas and Easter), and who ticks the "Christian" box when the Census taker comes around once every ten years because he's an American and Americans are Christians and because his grandma goes to church once a week. He doesn't call himself an agnostic because the thought's never occurred to him, or because he's either never heard the word or the definition for it before. (This describes my dad to a 't'.) There are of course many points along the continuum between those two extreme poles.

 

Christian fundamentalists are altogether rare by global standards but they are numerous, ubiquitous, and highly influential here in the United States. As far as the West goes, the United States corners the market in "religiosity" by a country mile. The only country I can think of that might compare is Poland, which is fundy Catholic central for Europe and possibly the world. Outside the West there's South Korea and a few African countries like Swaziland where fundamentalist Christianity is influential to any degree like it is here. There's other pockets of religiosity in Europe aside from Poland such as Bavaria, and there are isolated communities of strict Protestant sects scattered here and there in countries like the Netherlands. However, for the most part, fundamentalism is about as common and about as approved of as gangs of highway bandits. In Italy, they humor the Pope while living it up in ways that would make people from the cold countries blush. There are devout Catholics there that take that shit really seriously, but they're few and far between, and the women among them are about the only Italian women that cover up their cleavage rather than showing a mile of it. In Norway on the other hand most people tell their churchmen to go jump in a fjord, and atheism is more common than the sort of nominal half-assed (or rather, non-assed) theism lazily espoused by our good American fellow.

 

I believe Christianity is in decline everywhere else in the Western world except for the United States because of our high concentration of fundamentalism. Whether this helps or hurts the liberals is another matter, of course. I'd say it hurts them because it steals their thunder. Also, some sociologists of religion argue that fundamentalism is so strong in the USA for two reasons: 1) the 13 colonies were a dumping ground for the unwanted, including kooky whack-job sects like the Puritans and Baptists; 2) without state support, and with a vast pluralism of clamoring sects, the market competition forced the fundamentalists to figure out how to survive and thrive. It was like vicious Darwinian battle for religious sects and between religious sects out there in the American wilderness. I would add in a third variable: education. In general, fundyism and religiosity goes down as education goes up, and the Europeans have put us to shame when it comes to the basic mass public education for quite a long time. That's not Euro-phile elitism, that's measurable, statistical fact.

[trekkie]

So, after reading this thread through a couple of times, here is my question:

 

What does/would liberal Christianity bring to American soceity that humanism doesn't already have?

 

Does it just offer the structure for humanists to meet together?

 

(Personal note: In my part of the country (Texas), we have the Unitarian Universalist, which most people don't even consider to be Christian, and then a few liberal denominations that are, truth be told, moving more conservative rather than liberal (Episcopalian, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ). While their theology and worldview may be liberal/progressive, their services are steeped in liturgical worship that points to a blood-drenched savior who was killed by an angry deity. And, Sunday after Sunday, they recite the creeds which, for me, no longer reflect what I believe. So it is odd to have socially progressive churches that still worship the "old gods" or the God of the fundamentalists. I can't see these churches being places where humanist would want to gather. As soon as you walk in the door, before you can even discover their progressive theology, these churches' atmosphere is bloody.)

 

If you could have a secular church, what would it look like?

 

Would you even call it a church?

[bubbleloulicious]

So, after reading this thread through a couple of times, here is my question:

 

What does/would liberal Christianity bring to American soceity that humanism doesn't already have?

 

Does it just offer the structure for humanists to meet together?

 

 

Doesn't humanism, in its broadest terms, also include religious humanism? It is my understanding that, although it is largely secular, it is not strictly secular.

[Antlerman]

So, after reading this thread through a couple of times, here is my question:

 

What does/would liberal Christianity bring to American soceity that humanism doesn't already have?

 

Does it just offer the structure for humanists to meet together?

 

(Personal note: In my part of the country (Texas), we have the Unitarian Universalist, which most people don't even consider to be Christian, and then a few liberal denominations that are, truth be told, moving more conservative rather than liberal (Episcopalian, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ). While their theology and worldview may be liberal/progressive, their services are steeped in liturgical worship that points to a blood-drenched savior who was killed by an angry deity. And, Sunday after Sunday, they recite the creeds which, for me, no longer reflect what I believe. So it is odd to have socially progressive churches that still worship the "old gods" or the God of the fundamentalists. I can't see these churches being places where humanist would want to gather. As soon as you walk in the door, before you can even discover their progressive theology, these churches' atmosphere is bloody.)

 

If you could have a secular church, what would it look like?

 

Would you even call it a church?

Excellent question. Complex response. First, I still don't see it proper to say that even though they may be worshiping the "old god". as in reciting liturgies and creeds, that that is the same god as the fundamentalists worship. The fundamentalists certainly don't see it that way.

 

The words of the creeds are almost more like saying the pledge of allegiance in school everyday. It basically is a bunch of words strung together that when spoken ritually serve as more a matter of saying, "I'm an American". How many actually ponder the meaning of the words religiously? My best example is me as a little Lutheran boy saying "Come Lord Jesus, be our guest, let these gifts to us be blessed", before dinner. In the first grade in public school they asked us to write out a prayer we knew in order to see how words look in a sentence. As I wrote out the words, it was a revelation! They were words! I had always thought it was just some mouthing we said, "comelordjesusbeourguest let these gifts to us be blessed". This as an illustration how I see your average cultural Christian approaches the ritual of religious rites, as opposed to the strict literal interpretation of them. Their god, is a god of their culture. And those creeds and rites are part of that. There's lots of rituals we perform in our culture that if examined literally are absurd! And I'm not talking religious rituals. Every look at all those discarded trees that people set out at the sidewalk each year in the middle of winter!

 

That said, what might a religious institution offer that a secular one not, one that is simply a gathering of humanists without liturgy, rights, rituals, etc? Well, all of those for one thing. We as humans respond favorably ritual. That's a whole topic in itself. A humanist only meeting lacks the aesthetic aspects. You can go to a music or poetry recital, go to an art museum, etc, but as far as some sort of organized, ritualized, social gathering, it's not there. Those aspects of humanity are neglected in a purely rationalist world. Additionally, there is social identity. We've lost a certain connection to others in a regular common gathering. You can have Star Trek fan gatherings, but if you look closely, you'll see those familiar earmarks of what is part of what's in churches (not identical of course), but niches aren't the larger society. And I guess that's my point. I've attended a local atheist group, but at best it's like your fan groups, if you will. I can connect with people who share common interest, but as far as a larger social identity, it's not likely to satisfy.

 

I'm out of time here, but I'll pick this up later. I want to get back to mythology and lack thereof in our culture. Mysticism is one thing, but I'm talking about human ideals in ritualized metaphoric language for mass identity. Anyway... later.

[trekkie]

First, I still don't see it proper to say that even though they may be worshiping the "old god". as in reciting liturgies and creeds, that that is the same god as the fundamentalists worship. The fundamentalists certainly don't see it that way.

 

Okay, let me clarify my meaning a little bit. Whether one is a conservative Christian or a liberal Christian, one still tends to think of God in a theistic manner -- God is a heavenly father whose main goal is to rescue the world from "the fall". Granted, Christians disagree as to HOW this is accomplished. Conservatives say that it is accomplished by individuals accepting Jesus as their savior who either take them to heaven or make a new world. Mainline Christians seem to think that God rescues the world by Christians living out the teachings of Jesus. Liberals seem to most agree with mainline except that they see God's rescue as more of a social movement than as an "individual race."

 

Nevertheless, all of these Christians (except for some possible fringe sects) say that God wants to rescue the world (from sin, from evil, from Satan, from Democrats -- ha ha!), and that God has a plan to do so. They all agree that, somehow, Jesus' death and resurrection is a hingepin to God's great rescue operation, but few of them can say EXACTLY how this works. So this is what I mean by the "old god", the God of requirements and rewards, who is, basically, a super-human in the sky who wants to rescue humanity.

 

You're right, fundies generally don't see anything except what they want to see. Liberals tend to "look for the good" in all belief systems. But my point is that humanists don't generally believe in a theistic God. So what would ANY form of Christianity that holds to theism have to offer humanists?

[Antlerman]

First, I still don't see it proper to say that even though they may be worshiping the "old god". as in reciting liturgies and creeds, that that is the same god as the fundamentalists worship. The fundamentalists certainly don't see it that way.

 

Okay, let me clarify my meaning a little bit. Whether one is a conservative Christian or a liberal Christian, one still tends to think of God in a theistic manner -- God is a heavenly father whose main goal is to rescue the world from "the fall". Granted, Christians disagree as to HOW this is accomplished. Conservatives say that it is accomplished by individuals accepting Jesus as their savior who either take them to heaven or make a new world. Mainline Christians seem to think that God rescues the world by Christians living out the teachings of Jesus. Liberals seem to most agree with mainline except that they see God's rescue as more of a social movement than as an "individual race."

 

Nevertheless, all of these Christians (except for some possible fringe sects) say that God wants to rescue the world (from sin, from evil, from Satan, from Democrats -- ha ha!), and that God has a plan to do so. They all agree that, somehow, Jesus' death and resurrection is a hingepin to God's great rescue operation, but few of them can say EXACTLY how this works. So this is what I mean by the "old god", the God of requirements and rewards, who is, basically, a super-human in the sky who wants to rescue humanity.

 

You're right, fundies generally don't see anything except what they want to see. Liberals tend to "look for the good" in all belief systems. But my point is that humanists don't generally believe in a theistic God. So what would ANY form of Christianity that holds to theism have to offer humanists?

Alright, so you are defining essentially that "old god" is the view that man of turning to God, following the prescribed philosophy, or rule book as it were for those who need to be told the steps instead of understanding the underlying principles at play in it, and that Jesus is the key to the "rescue plan". The particulars can vary, anywhere from being elected individually to be "saved" down to everyone will be saved ultimately, regardless. The whole "blood on the altar" thing can be taken quite literally, or totally symbolically, or anywhere in between. Is that a fair summary?

 

The thought I see, as a humanist looking at the creation of God's Salvation plan, written between the lines and down at its heart, is essentially a humanist philosophy, with God being the symbol on a pole for all to gaze their eyes on as the follow the rules of good, civilzed, human behavior in themselves. In the end, hopefully one

[trekkie]

Is that a fair summary?

 

Fairly fair.

 

In shorthand, theism says that mankind cannot improve or save itself without God intervening, that we don't have the wherewithal within us to become better people. Humanism says that we do have the wherewithal within us to improve or save ourselves, that we are not waiting for or expecting God to show up to save us, that it is really up to us.

 

To my way of thinking, which could (of course) be wrong, as long as any church holds to theism, it will not appeal to humanists.

 

A mention was made about 'religious humanists.' I've never heard of this term and would appreciate someone enlightening me as to what it means.

 

Thanks.

 

bill

[Antlerman]

First, I still don't see it proper to say that even though they may be worshiping the "old god". as in reciting liturgies and creeds, that that is the same god as the fundamentalists worship. The fundamentalists certainly don't see it that way.

 

Okay, let me clarify my meaning a little bit. Whether one is a conservative Christian or a liberal Christian, one still tends to think of God in a theistic manner -- God is a heavenly father whose main goal is to rescue the world from "the fall". Granted, Christians disagree as to HOW this is accomplished. Conservatives say that it is accomplished by individuals accepting Jesus as their savior who either take them to heaven or make a new world. Mainline Christians seem to think that God rescues the world by Christians living out the teachings of Jesus. Liberals seem to most agree with mainline except that they see God's rescue as more of a social movement than as an "individual race."

 

Nevertheless, all of these Christians (except for some possible fringe sects) say that God wants to rescue the world (from sin, from evil, from Satan, from Democrats -- ha ha!), and that God has a plan to do so. They all agree that, somehow, Jesus' death and resurrection is a hingepin to God's great rescue operation, but few of them can say EXACTLY how this works. So this is what I mean by the "old god", the God of requirements and rewards, who is, basically, a super-human in the sky who wants to rescue humanity.

 

You're right, fundies generally don't see anything except what they want to see. Liberals tend to "look for the good" in all belief systems. But my point is that humanists don't generally believe in a theistic God. So what would ANY form of Christianity that holds to theism have to offer humanists?

Alright, so you are defining essentially that "old god" is the view that man of turning to God, following the prescribed philosophy, or rule book as it were for those who need to be told the steps instead of understanding the underlying principles at play in it, and that Jesus is the key to the "rescue plan". The particulars can vary, anywhere from being elected individually to be "saved" down to everyone will be saved ultimately, regardless. The whole "blood on the altar" thing can be taken quite literally, or totally symbolically, or anywhere in between. Is that a fair summary?

 

The thought I see, as a humanist looking at the creation of "God's Salvation plan", written between the lines and down at its heart, is essentially a humanist philosophy, with God being the symbol on a pole for all to gaze their eyes on as the follow the rules intended to make them better citizens and human beings. If one is serving God (representing the ideals and values of that society), then you are serving that ideal. This is why you see YHWH evolve from the symbol of values of the early Israelites as for the democratic protection of landowners from the corrupt local rulers and overlords. God was for the peasant landowner's values, reflecting that early societies values coming out of an earlier Canaanite society (which they themselves were prior to becoming Israel, as archeology demonstrates). Then he becomes this borderless deity, a universal God not tie to the land of Israel any longer during the Assyrian captivity; then he becomes this God of Love in later societies with the Christian community ideas, and so forth.

 

I'd say all in all, you have many images of god to choose from, each reflecting some part of those cultures, and my little pet idea is that of our basic human values of peace, love, and cooperation, along with our human emotional sense of the aesthetic tied into and threaded throughout all of these many a varying faces of god, within the Canaanite/Judaic/Christian progression of religious myth. In it's own way its like those who read back through oral traditions and early biblical writings to see the kernel that exists. My argument is that the kernel in all the myth is man's image of himself in the face of God. God is the mask we put on us.

 

So what's the benefit of myth? A way to look at ourselves in more accessible ways. We "live for God", is really saying, "I want to be God". But we can't fathom something like that, so we make it more accessible in 'teachings', through forms that express it symbolically, through ritual, etc. What would any form of theism offer? Well, a transcendent externalization of ourselves. I have a saying, "Human's create God, and feed God, so God can feed us". God feed back to society what society feeds to God. God is man's servant. What secular equivalent of that do we have where we can come together and ritually act out these ideals. A baseball game, election time, etc? These actually apply, but where's the humanist equivalent. Where is my "Universal Church of Humanity" under my Avatar over on the right of this page? There's a universal soul of humanity, I believe, but where is it's community gathering place? What do we as atheists and agnostics have?

 

I don't know the answers really. We're not there yet in society. We still busy in the process of laying down the dividing lines, rather than trying to find ourselves as humanity beyond that. Call that my Holy Grail search. I feel fairly comfortable with my reconciliation of reason and "faith", if you will, but how that translates to society is another matter altogether.

[bubbleloulicious]

A mention was made about 'religious humanists.' I've never heard of this term and would appreciate someone enlightening me as to what it means.

 

Thanks.

 

bill

 

 

Hi Bill, religious humanism is something relatively new to me as well. I only recently was introduced to humanism and as I began looking into it I found myself wondering if there might be a religious aspect to humanism as well, thus I began a search on it. The first in the search engine was this link:

 

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

 

 

 

I'm still in the process of examining the possibilities within both. The possibility that religion can be integrated within, instead of being excluded from humanistic ideals.

 

I suppose it is the personal experience I have had as a liberal christian that made it possible for me to make a connection between the two. I am, by no means imaginable, an expert on either. But, as many have pointed out the liberal christian often attempts to find middle ground between two opposing ideas. In my own experince, that appears to be a fact about certain people and how their minds work to find what is potentially beneficial to all peoples.

 

 

I suppose that is all I have to say on the matter, considering my own "virginity" on this topic.

[Antlerman]

In shorthand, theism says that mankind cannot improve or save itself without God intervening, that we don't have the wherewithal within us to become better people. Humanism says that we do have the wherewithal within us to improve or save ourselves, that we are not waiting for or expecting God to show up to save us, that it is really up to us. To my way of thinking, which could (of course) be wrong, as long as any church holds to theism, it will not appeal to humanists.

You actually aren't correct. Theism does not equal Augustinian doctrine. You should enjoy this brief article that should get your wheels turning! Ever hear of Pelagius? http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/chri...st_pelagius.htm

 

Let me know your thoughts. I've got plenty of them about this.

 

Besides, theism isn't limited to doctrines about Jehovah, it can be any idea of any god.

 

A mention was made about 'religious humanists.' I've never heard of this term and would appreciate someone enlightening me as to what it means.

 

Thanks.

 

bill

Well the term humanist is pretty broad. What you appear to be doing is taking secular humanism to define all of humanism. I see that humanism transcends all beliefs about gods or lack thereof, and in my approach, hopes to incorporate them into a "theory of everything"; We are God and God is Us. Humanism defined on Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

 

From the first article linked to above, Pelagius would qualify as a humanist, and frankly I see a lot of a humanist message in what "Jesus" said as well. Certainly Pelagus did. Too bad the Church branded him a heretic. He was no small player in it, nor had that doctrine of original sin or the depraved nature of man ever been made some orthodox view in order to condemn his as heresy. It was simply another read of the Bible, the damned 5th Century Liberal!!

[trekkie]

You actually aren't correct. Theism does not equal Augustinian doctrine.

 

Maybe not, Keith. But I speak in generalities, my friend, especially in the context of THIS forum, which, unless I am wrong, is mainly about people leaving conservative, fundamentalist Christianity. True, Judaism and Muslim beliefs are rooted in theism also, a belief in a punishing/rewarding God. Christianity does not have a corner on theism. Nevertheless, the context of this forum is leaving orthodox Christianity. I don't write my posts in such a way as to cover every possible denomination or interpretation of Christianity out there. I'm writing about orthodox Christianity in general. Please don't expect me to address and cover every possible contingency.

 

Let me know your thoughts.

 

This website echoes what I said:

 

Quote: "Traditional, orthodox Christianity [says that] without assistance from God, it is impossible for a person to truly do good and improve themselves."

 

The claim that Pelagius' views disagree with Augustine views about human nature doesn't mean that Pelagius is right. Nor does it mean that Pelagius is wrong. It simply means that they saw things differently. And this is one of the big problems in Christianity: it's tendency to be myopic about 'the' truth means that it squashes opposing opinions (although the bible is replete with them).

 

Frankly I see a lot of a humanist message in what "Jesus" said as well. Certainly Pelagus did. Too bad the Church branded him a heretic.

 

And therein lies the rub. Was the Church that branded Pelagius "Christian" or "Christianity"? By their definition and that of their culture, yes.

 

And this is something that my years in liberal Christian did teach me -- Christianity, as a religion, has very little to do with what Jesus taught. Jesus never defined what a Christian was or was not. He never told anyone how to become a Christian. It's my belief that Paul turned "following Christ" into the systematic religion we know as Christianity. This is what bothers me about liberal Christianity: they so much want to be known as Christians. They want their "piece of the pie" so that they can proudly wear the label "Christian" and, perhaps, be considered orthodox. "After all, we are Christians TOO!" they say. Modern Christianity is dominated almost exclusively by Augustinian thought, which many liberals reject. So let's be honest, why would a liberal "follower of Christ" or a humanist want to be a "Christian"?

 

In our secular culture, to be a Christian is to be considered to be a right-wing, bible-thumping fundamentalist. It may be a charicature, but it has stuck. While the actual fundies are a small minority, they are the most out-spoken "face of Christianity" in our world and control/influence most of what is called Christian media. As a result, many "liberal Christians" are eschewing that moniker and going with "follower of Jesus" or "follower of Christ" or "follower of the Way." They feel that the word "Christian" has too much negative baggage attached to it. They don't want to be known as Christians, even as liberal ones. For them, saying they are a "liberal Christian" would be analogous to saying that they are democratic communists. I appluad them for such, although I don't believe following Christ is necessarily a good thing either.

 

Now, I realize, again, I am speaking in generalities. Not all liberals feel this way. Some are vocal about reclaiming and redeeming the name "Christian." Can they do it? Time will tell. But, as I've said before, while you may find humanist teachings and viewpoints in liberal churches, all the initial trappings that we find upon entering the door tells us, just as the fundies do, that Jesus died to save us from our sins. They may be progressive in their views, but their symbolism and icons are still the same as the fundies and, therefore, carry the same message.

 

Good conversation.

 

bill

[Antlerman]

You actually aren't correct. Theism does not equal Augustinian doctrine.

 

Maybe not, Keith. But I speak in generalities, my friend, especially in the context of THIS forum, which, unless I am wrong, is mainly about people leaving conservative, fundamentalist Christianity. True, Judaism and Muslim beliefs are rooted in theism also, a belief in a punishing/rewarding God. Christianity does not have a corner on theism. Nevertheless, the context of this forum is leaving orthodox Christianity. I don't write my posts in such a way as to cover every possible denomination or interpretation of Christianity out there. I'm writing about orthodox Christianity in general. Please don't expect me to address and cover every possible contingency.

Sometimes generalities can cause problems in discussion as I have seen the use of theism cause around here. We have an entire forum area called “ExChristian Theism and Spirituality.” In which use, theism means other gods. Problems arise on this site when members start attacking “theism” when they are meaning to criticize the Judeo/Christian theistic belief. I’ve see it happen repeatedly. I usually phrase thing “the Christian idea of God”, or some qualifier like this.

 

But regarding Augustinian doctrine, it is true that Orthodox Christianity has adopted that, and for the most part it defines Christianity. My point though is that there has been, and even is today is some parts of Christianity with a more optimistic view of humans, such as Pelagius had. Augustinian Christianity, is what makes most of your Protestant churches what I consider a pessimistic religion. See my debate in the Arena here where I express my thoughts about it more: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=19135

 

However, oddly enough, Catholocism is not as Augustinian, as pesimissitic as Protestants are in this area of human nature. They actually have adopted and synthesized some of Pelagius’ views along with Augustinian views in what is known as Semi-Pelagianism http://www.theopedia.com/Semi-Pelagianism Essentially, man needs to be reconciled with God because of original sin, but man’s nature is such that he can choose good, and is able to act on that within his nature – which is a humanistic view. So the Catholics are able to retain their control in people needing to come to the Church for salvation, but they are to do the work of living for God after that, asking forgiveness when they fail.

 

Luther however, and John Calvin even more so, were adamant Augustinian theologians. This is where the idea that man’s nature is utterly depraved is emphasized. This is where I hammer down on Christianity the hardest, and where I feel it fails humanity utterly. I don’t believe threats and negative condemnation of one’s unique person is healthy in the least. I could go on for a long time on this, but you can read some of that debate above if you wish. This is why humanism is so much more appealing, and frankly realistic to me.

 

But, my point is if someone sees a use in having a god to look to in their efforts to be better people, there are certainly other forms of belief that don’t essentially call you dung. I could easily embrace, and have, those who say they are Christian who view all life, and all humans as essentially beautiful. I can’t connect with those who say we are filth at heart. I deeply pity them.

 

Let me know your thoughts.

 

This website echoes what I said:

 

Quote: "Traditional, orthodox Christianity [says that] without assistance from God, it is impossible for a person to truly do good and improve themselves."

 

The claim that Pelagius' views disagree with Augustine views about human nature doesn't mean that Pelagius is right. Nor does it mean that Pelagius is wrong. It simply means that they saw things differently. And this is one of the big problems in Christianity: it's tendency to be myopic about 'the' truth means that it squashes opposing opinions (although the bible is replete with them).

Well, that is a problem with it. The worst thing that happened to Christianity was the Bible! What I mean by that is that as the “story” was evolving, it adapted itself to the current needs of the culture it was talking to. That’s why you see Jesus talking differently, and even contradicting himself at times. It’s the story-teller’s adaptation to suit the audience. Jesus lambasts the Pharisees, yet they were hardly a power when he was supposed to be alive, but they certainly were a power in Matthew’s town where that Gospel was penned, and so forth.

 

Once the story became canonized, it quit being a dynamic and evolving myth, and became doctrine. With the rise of the Bureaucracy, you got even less of a dynamic myth system, and it became a Religion with a capital R, exactly what the early Christianities emerged in response to. See some of my thoughts on this here if you’re interested: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...c=23961&hl=

 

So yes, they certainly are myopic. That’s the whole conundrum of religion I talk about in that last link. They move from being a movement, to a religion, to a chain around people’s necks. Any time you organize a movement, you have to control it, and at that point the message gets lost in the system. They actually become the devil that they fought to free themselves from in the first place.

 

Frankly I see a lot of a humanist message in what "Jesus" said as well. Certainly Pelagus did. Too bad the Church branded him a heretic.

 

And therein lies the rub. Was the Church that branded Pelagius "Christian" or "Christianity"? By their definition and that of their culture, yes.

It was Christianity, the organization of priestly politicians. There’s always some movement within the system that crops up to try to bring reform, but it’s usually squashed when it threatens the hierarchy at the top. Pelagius had a large, popular following, but his views were perceived to undermine the Churches reason to exist. So, who care about what speaks truth to people, it’s about their power. It was the same thing with Judaism.

 

And this is something that my years in liberal Christian did teach me -- Christianity, as a religion, has very little to do with what Jesus taught. Jesus never defined what a Christian was or was not. He never told anyone how to become a Christian. It's my belief that Paul turned "following Christ" into the systematic religion we know as Christianity. This is what bothers me about liberal Christianity: they so much want to be known as Christians. They want their "piece of the pie" so that they can proudly wear the label "Christian" and, perhaps, be considered orthodox. "After all, we are Christians TOO!" they say. Modern Christianity is dominated almost exclusively by Augustinian thought, which many liberals reject. So let's be honest, why would a liberal "follower of Christ" or a humanist want to be a "Christian"?

I think this is why you have a lot of people who call themselves Christian that don’t go to any church at all. It’s not simple for liberal leadership to appeal to those with a non-traditional mindset, while giving those of more traditional views a place to feel secure and at home. Frankly, I could easily stand before a liberal congregation and speak “Humanist” teachings to them using Christian language. Quite simply in fact. I could even talk that way without flinching about it, seeing it in my mind as simply a vehicle of language to communicate these human truths, having no thought about any of the symbols being literal beings up in the cosmos somewhere, but simply symbols of ideals (as they are). Consider it being bilingual.

 

The real question I have though, is how many in that congregation could wrap their minds around that understanding? If I were to announce to that congregation that there is no literal god in the sky watching over you and I, but that these are connotatively rich forms of language that inspire the heart that accepts them non-literally, symbolically, poetically, and aesthetically; how many of them would get up and walk out feeling I am rejecting everything they came for, even though it is giving them exactly that, despite my explaining the mechanisms of how it works? That’s my point. How do you have any church that can appeal to the more enlightened “spiritual humanist”, and the average social Christian who processes the symbols on a less “aware” level?

 

I think probably the problem lies mostly with the leadership and the nature of congregations. A pastor is more an administrator that has to deal with business demands, marketing, keeping the congregation together, etc. Being a deep thinker, being a philosopher and a scholar, sociologist, etc is a lot to ask for a generalist. Just some thoughts I won’t spend more time on here.

 

In our secular culture, to be a Christian is to be considered to be a right-wing, bible-thumping fundamentalist. It may be a charicature, but it has stuck. While the actual fundies are a small minority, they are the most out-spoken "face of Christianity" in our world and control/influence most of what is called Christian media. As a result, many "liberal Christians" are eschewing that moniker and going with "follower of Jesus" or "follower of Christ" or "follower of the Way." They feel that the word "Christian" has too much negative baggage attached to it. They don't want to be known as Christians, even as liberal ones. For them, saying they are a "liberal Christian" would be analogous to saying that they are democratic communists. I appluad them for such, although I don't believe following Christ is necessarily a good thing either.

That’s fascinating. I wasn’t aware of that.

 

One of the reasons I continue to use the term atheist for myself is to fight to reclaim the language from being co-opted by the hard-core, rationalist-materialist side of atheism. My atheism is more that of those who don’t cut the world into straight lines with sharp contrasting colors, but see the complexities inherent in simply ripping god out the equation. Super simple solutions, are the earmarks of a fundamentalist, secular or religious. So, yeah… I guess I’ve been saying humanist a lot in this thread so far. It’s seems I can understand how it’s become for them. I like this concept though, “Reclaiming the Language”.

 

Now, I realize, again, I am speaking in generalities. Not all liberals feel this way. Some are vocal about reclaiming and redeeming the name "Christian." Can they do it? Time will tell. But, as I've said before, while you may find humanist teachings and viewpoints in liberal churches, all the initial trappings that we find upon entering the door tells us, just as the fundies do, that Jesus died to save us from our sins. They may be progressive in their views, but their symbolism and icons are still the same as the fundies and, therefore, carry the same message.

I see your point. We should introduce them to Pelagius. They just need to drop Augustine, and then when they talk to people it would be on a more positive basis, than coming pleading for forgiveness. Guidance is a much more positive thing, and if they got past seeing the world as dark and sinful, they might actually be able to bring some light into the world. God knows, I sure am a lot more positive about life without all the judgment for sin bit. Isn’t the notion of salvation to free you from all that? How come they stay dwelling on it so much? Maybe they aren't saved and need to be? Maybe salvation is freedom from Religion? I'd say it is.

 

Good conversation.

Most definitely. I appreciate it. It’s fun to stretch some of these thoughts out to see where it goes.

[bubbleloulicious]

Luther however, and John Calvin even more so, were adamant Augustinian theologians. This is where the idea that man’s nature is utterly depraved is emphasized. This is where I hammer down on Christianity the hardest, and where I feel it fails humanity utterly. I don’t believe threats and negative condemnation of one’s unique person is healthy in the least. I could go on for a long time on this, but you can read some of that debate above if you wish. This is why humanism is so much more appealing, and frankly realistic to me.

 

But, my point is if someone sees a use in having a god to look to in their efforts to be better people, there are certainly other forms of belief that don’t essentially call you dung. I could easily embrace, and have, those who say they are Christian who view all life, and all humans as essentially beautiful. I can’t connect with those who say we are filth at heart. I deeply pity them.

 

 

I agree with you 100% here, and this is what spawned my separation. Even as a christian I felt that spit in the very face of the idea of the resurrection of Christ. I see that as being the mental/spiritual illness within Christianity. How can one not leave that, once realized? It just seems to vast to fix now. (A void, beyond "the void", if you will.)

[trekkie]

It’s fun to stretch some of these thoughts out to see where it goes.

 

If you'd like, Keith, I'm starting a new thread on myths here:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=27444

 

I'd welcome your input and insights.

 

That invitation extends to everyone here, of course!

 

bill

[Amethyst]

And this is something that my years in liberal Christian did teach me -- Christianity, as a religion, has very little to do with what Jesus taught. Jesus never defined what a Christian was or was not. He never told anyone how to become a Christian. It's my belief that Paul turned "following Christ" into the systematic religion we know as Christianity. This is what bothers me about liberal Christianity: they so much want to be known as Christians. They want their "piece of the pie" so that they can proudly wear the label "Christian" and, perhaps, be considered orthodox. "After all, we are Christians TOO!" they say. Modern Christianity is dominated almost exclusively by Augustinian thought, which many liberals reject. So let's be honest, why would a liberal "follower of Christ" or a humanist want to be a "Christian"?

 

I think most people do it for social acceptance, because to wear an "Atheist" label openly is to be outcast. If there wasn't so much outright prejudice against Atheists and other non-Christian groups, I think more people would be comfortable with at least admitting they were Agnostic or Deist.