Moderate Christians

[waynus]

waynus. Did you read this?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------

The Virus of Religious Moderation

by Sam Harris

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I read it. I don't advocate moderation in religion, danger lies that way. I always encourage people to explore their faith deeply.

Who wrote your bible, Koran?

How was it past down?

How has it been understood?

How has this changed?

 

etc ,etc, etc

 

To my thinking fundamentalism is a lack of committment to a religious faith. People to lazy to really explore what they believe and therfore easily exploited by those without principles.

[dogmatically_challenged]

To my thinking fundamentalism is a lack of committment to a religious faith. People to lazy to really explore what they believe and therfore easily exploited by those without principles.

Amen to that. Still, the N.T. does not encourage thinking it encourages us to believe and obey.

 

That is why I don't you these progressive xians are xians. I don't see that there is enough of the bible that is really good for anything and so why cling to it at all?

[waynus]

Amen to that. Still, the N.T. does not encourage thinking it encourages us to believe and obey.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The Gospel of Thomas doesn't.

[dogmatically_challenged]

The Gospel of Thomas doesn't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You know, Ive had plenty of opprtunities to read The Gospel of Thomas and haven't.

 

These progressive christians, do they use a lot of books that were considered heretical?

[waynus]

You know, Ive had plenty of opprtunities to read The Gospel of Thomas and haven't.

 

These progressive christians, do they use a lot of books that were considered heretical?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It varies. Most of us see that the books of the NT are only a limited picture of what the early church believed. So the other books are often read to give a broader picture of the times. The Jesus Seminar has really led the way on this.

 

As a group though progressive Christians think that people today are just as capable of life affirming insights, so we are not dependant on ancient authorites.

Liturgies and such often reflect this.

[dogmatically_challenged]

It varies. Most of us see that the books of the NT are only a limited picture of what the early church believed. So the other books are often read to give a broader picture of the times. The Jesus Seminar has really led the way on this.

 

As a group though progressive Christians think that people today are just as capable of life affirming insights, so we are not  dependant on ancient authorites.

Liturgies and such often reflect this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This does not offend me really. I can't see anything wrong with it. Too bad it won't sell to the average American who is dependant on the "certainty" of afterlife.

 

It does not look like progressive christians can offer the certainty that most xers crave like a drug.

[waynus]

Another web site.

http://faithfutures.org/MamboCMS/index.php

[dogmatically_challenged]

Another web site.

http://faithfutures.org/MamboCMS/index.php

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I decided to edit my post to "It does not look like progressive christians can offer the certainty that most xers crave like a drug."

 

Thanks for all the info waynus. I act like a raving asshole a lot of the time here, but really, I hate the sickness of mainstream and fundy xianity. I am not against people who try other solutions though so long as they do not cling to bigotry and get in the way of science as well as freedom.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Still I see much bigotry in the bible. I can't see the value of the bible. I have not read any of the heretical books though.

 

I can't stand much of the O.T. as well as the N.T. In them I see stories with no real moral to them. I see bigotry and hatefulness, vengefulness, ...silly beliefs.

 

Still I think I will try to understand this progressive Christianity you are talking about.

[Antlerman]

As an aside.

Why is it that ex-fundamentalists are so hard line on liberal/progressive Christians?

 

It seems to me that it could be a hangover from their fundamentalist days. That is they rejected liberal Christianity as sinful and in error back then; and have never rethought that position.

 

As a group liberal/progressive Christians do not believe in an inspired scripture, do not believe in evangelism or superstision and base their moral choices on reason. This seems to match what many on this board are saying.

 

So why the hostility? ( in a philosopical sense, not a personal one)

That for your posts Waynus. I've been waiting for this type of dialogue.

 

I've tried to explore what the reasons for why myself or other ex fundi’s I know can't make non-literal belief a part of their human experience. I know some ex fundi’s who can, and it is nearly mind-boggling to me, yet I respect and sometimes envy them for their ability to do that.

 

I think the answer lies in basic personality types. I am wired differently than them. They are wired differently from me. Neither is necessarily the better way to be for everyone. It's really what works for us for who we are.

 

I was attracted to fundamentalism because it purported to have answers to satisfy my logical mind, at the same time I have a deeply spiritual/artistic side to my personality. In time once the "logic" was shown to be a totally fallacy, I had tried exploring more main stream faiths to continue to satisfy my desire to believe in an all seeing, loving personal god.

 

I found it to be unsatisfying because my mind needed to justify its foundation. The whole foundation of Christianity was laid in the context of historical truth, purporting itself to be one of perfect, unquestionable revelation direct from the mouth of the Almighty. I've often thought that something like Hinduism would have worked better because it never purports itself to be anything other that mythology, but I still think my mind wouldn't have been able to incorporate it.

 

I've come to think this way in part because I can see those who were in the same fundi organization I was in that have rejected the hard core infallibility line, yet are totally happy with going to a main stream church. They are totally unbothered by their fully knowing it is not real historical fact.

 

It's is not part of the equation for them. It is part of the equation for people like me (which I dare say I think many of us here I like this). They were fundi's, we were fundi's. I see it as personality types and what we need it to posses in order for it to be able to work for us. Fundamentalism promised it, but didn't deliver. Pure mythology doesn't offer it. Is a shortcoming, or just a difference?

 

Your thoughts?

[Amethyst]

Progressive xians should not call themselves Christians. It ain't honest.

 

I don't entirely disagree; however, our society allows anyone to join any religious group they want to, and call themselves whatever they want to. I would personally wish for all liberal/progressive Christians to join Universalist churches. They would at least be honest with themselves then. But most of them are still too afraid of what their families and friends will think of them, so they hide behind Christian labels.

 

If some celeb made it "cool" to be a Universalist or a Pagan or an Agnostic or something, I think some of these people would deconvert. That's what saddens me about this society; most people join religions based on their popularity.

 

I personally tried a UCC church (United Church of Christ), but I couldn't bring myself to believe in the myths anymore then I could in the fundy Missouri-Synod Lutheran church I left.

[EdwardAbbey]

I believe the books in the bible are one picture of Jesus and God. There are many other pictures that never made the bible they too have some merit. All are flawed human constructions of what God might be like. I think if a God exists that being will be way behond our comprension. The bible is an amazing book because of the influence it has had not for any other reason.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This all well and good I guess but what does this have to do with what I asked you in my last post? I noticed you didn't even bother to answer any of the questions I asked you. If you dont' follow the bible as your guide for considering yourself a Christian, just what do you follow as a guide?

 

What do you believe about the person of Jesus in the biblical sense? do you believe he was born from a virgin impregnated by a ghost? do you believe in these basic requirements about the person of Jesus as the majority of Christians claim in order to be qualified as a true Christian? basically his birth, death and resuurection?

 

The only conclusion I can come to regarding moderate Christianity is that it makes no sense. It's like I said in my first post regarding this topic and that is basically,

moderate Christianity and those who regard themselves as such are rejecting what the bible is actually saying and living as morally as they can and desperately clinging to the bible and their pseudo Christianity without having to identify themselves as non-believers, agnostics or atheists.

[Kuroikaze]

This all well and good I guess but what does this have to do with what I asked you in my last post?  I noticed you didn't even bother to answer any of the questions I asked you.  If you dont' follow the bible as your guide for considering yourself a Christian, just what do you follow as a guide? 

 

What do you believe about the person of Jesus in the biblical sense?  do you believe he was born from a virgin impregnated by a ghost?  do you believe in these basic requirements about the person of Jesus as the majority of Christians claim in order to be qualified as a true Christian?  basically his birth, death and resuurection? 

 

The only conclusion I can come to regarding moderate Christianity is that it makes no sense.  It's like I said in my first post regarding this topic and that is basically,

moderate Christianity and those who regard themselves as such are rejecting what the bible is actually saying and living as morally as they can and desperately clinging to the bible and their pseudo Christianity without having to identify themselves as non-believers, agnostics or atheists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well I have known a few moderate or liberal christians, I was a religion major my first time though college and one of my profesers called him self a Buddhist Christian. I think his feeling was that it was the mistake of early western philosophy that made christianianty so close minded. He would point out that many religions, eastern ones in particular had no problem with believing in multiple religions or holding ideas that don't exactly fit that spicific religion. He liked a lot of things Jesus said but I think he more thought of Jesus as being someone who was enlighented, he didn't believe all that nonsence about blood sacrifices and stuff. I respect him a lot now that I have deconverted. However I have to concede that what he believes isn't really christianity. Sure Taoism, Buddhism, Shinto, Confucinism and other eastern religions allow people to use there minds to think and explore as much as they want. However Christianity doesn't do that. Its very basis says either belive me and be saved or reject and be damned. I think that finally people like my professor are unwilling to reject the religion they were rasied in (he used to be a fundamentalist himself) but have become aware of the limitations of the narrow thinking that mainstream christianty encourages.

 

Its the same with Muslum mystics like the suffis as well. In both casses their religion is part of the culture they have been brought up in and its important for them to hold on to those conections. If they wish to hold onto some of the launguage and traditions of christianity without holding on to the negativity, hate and closemindedness then I say they are welcome too.

 

For my part, my thinking in regards to christiantiy is a bit too "one way or the other" (probably a hold over from my fundamentalism) to be able to think this way.

[Guest vanesa]

Isn't progressive Xtian kind of oxymoronic?

[waynus]

This all well and good I guess but what does this have to do with what I asked you in my last post?  I noticed you didn't even bother to answer any of the questions I asked you.  If you dont' follow the bible as your guide for considering yourself a Christian, just what do you follow as a guide? 

 

I guess I follow the same guide as everyone else my own reason. I am a Christian in the same way many Americans are Democrats or Republicans.

What do you believe about the person of Jesus in the biblical sense?  do you believe he was born from a virgin impregnated by a ghost?  do you believe in these basic requirements about the person of Jesus as the majority of Christians claim in order to be qualified as a true Christian?  basically his birth, death and resuurection? 

I believe these myths embodied truths for those who wrote them and for many who for centuries knew no better. The "Basic requirements" you speak of are not a part of all Christians beliefs. A majority? Depends on which church and where in the world you are.

 

The only conclusion I can come to regarding moderate Christianity is that it makes no sense.  It's like I said in my first post regarding this topic and that is basically,

moderate Christianity and those who regard themselves as such are rejecting what the bible is actually saying and living as morally as they can and desperately clinging to the bible and their pseudo Christianity without having to identify themselves as non-believers, agnostics or atheists.

 

As I have pointed out, the type of Christain you describe is not what I am. I am not desperately clinging to anything, why should I? Lloyd Geering said it all many years ago in his book Christianity without God . I just belong to a group of Christians you have not encountered before.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[/color]

[waynus]

That for your posts Waynus.  I've been waiting for this type of dialogue.

 

I've tried to explore what the reasons for why myself or other ex fundi’s I know can't make non-literal belief a part of their human experience.  I know some ex fundi’s who can, and it is nearly mind-boggling to me, yet I respect and sometimes envy them for their ability to do that.

 

I think the answer lies in basic personality types.  I am wired differently than them.  They are wired differently from me.  Neither is necessarily the better way to be for everyone.  It's really what works for us for who we are. 

 

I was attracted to fundamentalism because it purported to have answers to satisfy my logical mind, at the same time I have a deeply spiritual/artistic side to my personality.  In time once the "logic" was shown to be a totally fallacy, I had tried exploring more main stream faiths to continue to satisfy my desire to believe in an all seeing, loving personal god. 

 

I found it to be unsatisfying because my mind needed to justify its foundation.  The whole foundation of Christianity was laid in the context of historical truth, purporting itself to be one of perfect, unquestionable revelation direct from the mouth of the Almighty.  I've often thought that something like Hinduism would have worked better because it never purports itself to be anything other that mythology, but I still think my mind wouldn't have been able to incorporate it.

 

I've come to think this way in part because I can see those who were in the same fundi organization I was in that have rejected the hard core infallibility line, yet are totally happy with going to a main stream church.  They are totally unbothered by their fully knowing it is not real historical fact. 

 

It's is not part of the equation for them.  It is part of the equation for people like me (which I dare say I think many of us here I like this).  They were fundi's, we were fundi's.  I see it as personality types and what we need it to posses in order for it to be able to work for us.  Fundamentalism promised it, but didn't deliver.  Pure mythology doesn't offer it.  Is a shortcoming, or just a difference?

 

Your thoughts?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You may well be right, perhaps it is personality, individual need.

I agree with most of the views expressed against fundamentalism I just don't see the need to reject the faith in the same way. Guess I don't have the need for that certainty.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Isn't progressive Xtian kind of oxymoronic?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Er...yes.

 

Xianity is the religion of those christ worshipers who killed off all the other christ worshipers.

 

To be open to EVERY book and not just those books of the victors as well as admiting that the books are flawed or absurd in places; is not xianity.

 

Progressive xianity, should just call themselves mystic disciples of Christ or something. hehe. They are mystics and not xians. The victors coined the label xian and it belongs to them really.

[EdwardAbbey]

If you dont' follow the bible as your guide for considering yourself a Christian, just what do you follow as a guide? 

 

I guess I follow the same guide as everyone else my own reason. I am a Christian in the same way many Americans are Democrats or Republicans.

 

What do you believe about the person of Jesus in the biblical sense?  do you believe he was born from a virgin impregnated by a ghost?  do you believe in these basic requirements about the person of Jesus as the majority of Christians claim in order to be qualified as a true Christian?  basically his birth, death and resuurection? 

 

I believe these myths embodied truths for those who wrote them and for many who for centuries knew no better. The "Basic requirements" you speak of are not a part of all Christians beliefs. A majority? Depends on which church and where in the world you are. 

I'm talking about the world we live in now. The world that believes in the biblical Jesus; the Jesus you say is a mythological character. At least the fundamentalists are willing to die for what they believe in. yes the basic requirements; the questions you continue to ignore; the supernatural birth, his death and his coming back to life, the resurrection. but you seem to think yoiu can be a true Christian by not submitting to these beliefs. I don't call that being a Christian, I call it being a hypocrite!

The only conclusion I can come to regarding moderate Christianity is that it makes no sense.  It's like I said in my first post regarding this topic and that is basically,

moderate Christianity and those who regard themselves as such are rejecting what the bible is actually saying and living as morally as they can and desperately clinging to the bible and their pseudo Christianity without having to identify themselves as non-believers, agnostics or atheists.

 

 

As I have pointed out, the type of Christain you describe is not what I am. I am not desperately clinging to anything, why should I? Lloyd Geering said it all many years ago in his book Christianity without God . I just belong to a group of Christians you have not encountered before. 

If you're not clinging to Christianity, why call yourself a Christian at all then? You don't believe his mother had sex with a ghost and became impregnated and gave birth a supernatural savior/god and you don't even believe in his alleged resurrection. neither do I. I am no longer convinced Christianity is true. but you seem to think Christianity is the truth but reject most of what the bible says and teaches. I've encountered many pseudo Christians like yourself, that's the reason I started this thread. I'll give you one thing my friend, at least you are open to objective/critical thought about your view of the bible. something I would like to see more fundamentalist take advantage of. The bible is a great tool in itself for atheism; but for me to cling to it and consider the majority of the bible based on pagan mythology and still call myself a true Christian would only reduce me to the level of a hypocrite.

 

who is Lloyd Geering anyway? Is he another pseudo Christian like CS Lewis? Are these the modern saviors of the Christian faith who have replaced the biblical/mythical Jesus of the bible? I find it kind of humorous in a sense. The majority of true Christians believe Jesus suffered a terrible fate by being brutally crucified to death, but along comes the modern/pseudo, so called freethinkers of the faith who follow the more intellectual saviors who merely wrote books about their own version/brand of Christianity and didn't sacrifice anything.

 

Maybe I should have titled this thread: "Pseudo Christianity: the wannabe atheists"

 

Are you sure you're truly a Christian?

 

I thank God I'm an atheist.

[Checkmate]

If you're not clinging to Christianity, why call yourself a Christian at all then? You don't believe his mother had sex with a ghost and became impregnated and gave birth a supernatural savior/god and you don't even believe in his alleged resurrection. neither do I. I am no longer convinced Christianity is true. but you seem to think Christianity is the truth but reject most of what the bible says and teaches. I've encountered many pseudo Christians like yourself, that's the reason I started this thread.

And glad that I am that you did start this thread, Edward!

 

I have lost count of the number of times I have ranted and raved about so-called Christians who DON'T believe the Bible. WTF? Why CALL yourself "Christian" if you DON'T believe what the NT teaches about Jesus? Why not find some OTHER name to go by? These "moderate" Christians are simply new age gnostics and heretics. They are no more Christian™ than I am.

 

And I am a freaking atheist, BTW.

 

Quit playing silly ass word games. Be bold and call yourself something else. ANYTHING else, besides "Christian". You're just confusing everyone with such duplicity.

 

Simply because you WANT to call yourself a "Christian", that doesn't make it so. And if you're going to claim that being a Christian™ is somehow negotiable or variable, then how can you POSSIBLY say that you have the Truth™? Truth is universal. It is NOT subject to mercurial changes, mood swings, times of the season, nor spurious revelations handed out in secret to a chosen few with an agenda. Don't make me wretch.

 

I must insist that you people, who do NOT adhere to the Bible, church dogma and the Apostle's Creed STOP calling yourselves Christians™. The playing field is confused enough with the 40,000 so-called "legitimate" denominations in the world. We don't need individual Lone Ranger "Christians" spewing forth their own PRIVATE interpretations and revelations at us.

 

Besides, it's making your "god" look like MORE of an incompetent diety than he already is. You'd think the DIVINE could run a more efficient business than this.

 

Or to quote George Carlin, "Such work should be attributed to an office temp with a bad attitude!"

[Amanda]

Xianity is the religion of those christ worshipers who killed off all the other christ worshipers.

--------------------------------

Progressive xianity, should just call themselves mystic disciples of Christ or something. hehe. They are mystics and not xians. The victors coined the label xian and it belongs to them really.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi DC... I think ANY 'Christian' would agree, there is a tremendous chasm between themselves and the nature/abilities Jesus manifested. 'Christians' and Christ are NOT the same thing.... and what people do, using his 'name' as propaganda for their own cause, is often the opposite of everything he taught!

 

I agree that maybe different 'labels' to identify unique Biblical perspectives could eliminate an immediately harsh connotation to the 'label' Christian, for those of us that believe differently than mainstream thinking... yet maybe it would be more practical for people to just not stereotype anyone?

 

Regarding the consideration of a moderate/liberal Christian, I took that as opposed to a fanatical one. Anyone who says they stubbornly reside in the whole truth, and nothing but the truth... and believes everyone else should believe the same... is not a moderate in my book... in any belief system. So would a moderate Christian be one that believes there is tremendous merit in Jesus's character, yet realizes they don't know all the answers to everything he taught and for which he stood, and admit they haven't mastered absolute Truth?

[dogmatically_challenged]

Hi DC... I think ANY 'Christian' would agree, there is a tremendous chasm between themselves and the nature/abilities Jesus manifested. 'Christians' and Christ are NOT the same thing.... and what people do, using his 'name' as propaganda for their own cause, is often the opposite of everything he taught!

What? You don't worship the Paul that the early victors gave us? The gnostics have thier Paul who is a little different, if I have heard correctly. Hehe!

 

 

I agree that maybe different 'labels' to identify unique Biblical perspectives could eliminate an immediately harsh connotation to the 'label' Christian, for those of us that believe differently than mainstream thinking... yet maybe it would be more practical for people to just not stereotype anyone? 

It's appropriate to stereotype organized religion. I can't see how you fall into any stereotype of a follower of christ aside from mystic. What's wrong with the word mystic? You are trying to get a personal revelation from god without swallowing tradtional dogma. That is MHO.

 

Regarding the consideration of a moderate/liberal Christian, I took that as opposed to a fanatical one. Anyone who says they stubbornly reside in the whole truth, and nothing but the truth... and believes everyone else should believe the same... is not a moderate in my book... in any belief system. So would a moderate Christian be one that believes there is tremendous merit in Jesus's character, yet realizes they don't know all the answers to everything he taught and for which he stood, and admit they haven't mastered absolute Truth?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your not a moderate xian. Your a mystic. Also you are subconsiously rebelling against the scriptures given us by the victors in your theology. Moderates only do that a little bit while still maintaing that the whole bible is inspired by god and makes perfect sense. You really torture scripture a lot. You should consider this progressive mysticism. It is less absurd.

 

Anways, the label Christian belongs to those who coined the label.

 

The Wise MR. Grinch

Quit playing silly ass word games. Be bold and call yourself something else. ANYTHING else, besides "Christian". You're just confusing everyone with such duplicity.

I agree.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Maybe I should have titled this thread:  "Pseudo Christianity: the wannabe atheists"

 

Are you sure you're truly a Christian?

 

I thank God I'm an atheist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[waynus]

This is a general reply.

 

I think that a study of the Christian religion will show that it's beliefs have changed and been reshaped any number of times over it's history. The pre NT period, the post Nicene period, etc. Why must one part of that system that many of you were indoctrinated with remain unchanged?

 

Non fundamentalist Christians do exist, we grew out of, developed from the Christian church; no other label makes any sense. We are not the 'losers' of some historical doctrinal battle, we are the children of the victors of past battles setting new agendas. The fundamentalists pretend we do not exist. That is why in the US there are so many bible colleges. The fundamentalists withdrew from the mainstream universities because of their dislike of progressive Christianity. I am surprised that a non traditional form of Christianity arouses such intense feelings.

 

We have a long intellectual tradition, but unless you have read post 19th century theology you may not have heard of some of these thinkers. They do exist. Perhaps the Jesus Seminar is not a bad place to start for those interested in such matters.

 

Now some not so polite remarks:

1) If you are an athiest, why assume a fundamentalist positon on progressive Christianity?

Perhaps you still need to break the intellectual shakles that you took on back then.

 

2) If you are an athiest why does it matter if I define my beliefs as Christian?

Perhaps you are not as much of an athiest as you think. Mostof the genuine athiests I have had the pleasure to meet have no interest whatever in theological disputes, for them it is all meaningless.

 

3) I can hardly be a hypocrite if i openly say clearly what it is I think. There is no inconsistantcy in that.

 

4) When did athiests get to define religion, I don't try and define athieism.

 

5) For many it is a struggle to understand the progressive position. Why can you not accept that this is a part of the Christian faith you have not encountered before? By all means be critical that is what a board like this is for. However don't add your own baggage to others beliefs.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Good questions.

[waynus]

Good questions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

On the other side of the world we speak to each other, I hope we all we profit. If not at least ego is fed???

 

I live inAustralia so day is night at least some times.

 

scary thought today 23 celius 5 above the norm. weird!