Moderate Christians

[Reach]

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.

Another title could be something like Closet Atheists Without the Courage and Conviction of Their Beliefs.

 

I personally don't believe there is any permanent stance as a moderate or liberal Christian. The whole concept is intellectually dishonest. These moderates are compromising doctrine and deviating from long-held standards, wherever they see fit. They are simply closeted non-believers who have yet to cut their apron strings to their Christian faith.

[waynus]

Another title could be something like Closet Atheists Without the Courage and Conviction of Their Beliefs.

 

I personally don't believe there is any permanent stance as a moderate or liberal Christian. The whole concept is intellectually dishonest. These moderates are compromising doctrine and deviating from long-held standards, wherever they see fit. They are simply closeted non-believers who have yet to cut their apron strings to their Christian faith.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Or we follow a path that you have not seen or experienced.

[Reach]

They are simply closeted non-believers who have yet to cut their apron strings to their Christian faith.

Or we follow a path that you have not seen or experienced.

And what would that be?

 

Personally speaking, metaphysical studies and spiritual life journeys continue to hold my interest but I see nothing down the path of the Christian walk that attracts me.

[Checkmate]

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. Most of the genuine athiests I have had the pleasure to meet have no interest whatever in theological disputes, for them it is all meaningless.

Waynus, these are NOT impolite remarks. In fact, I believe they are the necessary "cold water" that should be splashed in our collective faces. Excellent points!

 

For I believe that we ARE often, if not always, guilty of assuming "a fundamentalist position" when we argue against modernist Christians. And to me, this seems ridiculous.

 

Your second point also has great merit. Why SHOULD it matter to any of us HOW someone defines their brand of Christianity? Why do we care?

 

Thank you for pointing out the obvious chink in our over-sensitive armor. I, for one, plan to regroup and re-tool my position and my approach from this point onward.

[Reach]

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. Most of the genuine athiests I have had the pleasure to meet have no interest whatever in theological disputes, for them it is all meaningless.

Waynus, these are NOT impolite remarks. In fact, I believe they are the necessary "cold water" that should be splashed in our collective faces. Excellent points!

 

For I believe that we ARE often, if not always, guilty of assuming "a fundamentalist position" when we argue against modernist Christians. And to me, this seems ridiculous.

 

Your second point also has great merit. Why SHOULD it matter to any of us HOW someone defines their brand of Christianity? Why do we care?

 

I agree with you that Waynus made some valid points. While I agree with him to a degree, I think that most of the time we are not fighting modernist Christians (or progressive Christians) as we find their positions to be more reasonable, less intrusive and their attitudes, views and villifications shift with the times. What we are mainly arguing against is fundamentalist Christianity and I think there is some merit to fighting that brand with fundamentalist atheism, like fighting fire with fire.

 

As for the particular label-of-the-month a Christian might choose for one's self, to me it makes no difference whatsoever.

 

Is progressive Christianity the same thing as post-modern Christianity?

[Antlerman]

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.

I agree with you Waynus on many of these points and am happy to hear you state them. I am a former Fundamentalist and am now an Atheist. It is a conundrum that as a former fundamentalist I tend to judge something as "genuine" Christianity from that mindset. It's something I came to realize is irrelevant since we're really talking about myth systems here. I still find myself falling into that trap from time to time.

 

All religions are mythological systems and you can make it whatever you want. Myth systems can evolve and change within a society. That's how myth systems work. There is no single definition of a Christian belief system, nor has there been throughout history. There has been a myriad of Christian beliefs since its birth. Why was there the Inquisition, the persecution of the Protestants, the Puritans, etc, ad infinitum, ad naseum? Who holds the "true" Christian belief? Is such a thing even possible?

 

I think it's a mistake to judge all Christianity against the fundamentalist point of view, and if I should feel disposed to that, which one of the fundamentalist camps should I be using as the gauge stick, Church of Christ, Assemblies of the Gods, United Pentecostal, Word of Faith, Jehovah's Witness?

 

Most Hindu's aren't going to argue Vishnu is real being. Are they not Hindu? Many Muslims I know won't argue for the infallibility of the Koran. Are they not real Muslims? The majority of Christians don't really believe the stories of the Bible are necessarily real. Are they not really Christian? In light of understanding the all religion is a myth system, of course they are. Fundamentalists in all of the above religions will argues they are not true Hindus, Muslims, Christians. I am not going to argue on their behalf. There is no one Hindu belief, one Islamic belief, or one Christian belief. There are fundamentalists, moderates, and progressives in each.

 

The only thing that can really be said is you are not a “fundamentalist” Christian. You are are not a hypocrite in my opinion.

[dogmatically_challenged]

I am not going to argue on their behalf

After those good questions put to us by waynus I really did not have the stomach to defend fundamentalism either. Yuk.

 

I think I learned something, here. Good points Waynus and Antlerman.

 

 

 

I also agree with Reach. I am still going to be an anti-evangelical evangelist though. I doubt I would be saying much about the bible and certain xer dogmas that a progressive Christian would not be saying themselves.

[indoctrinated]

Thank you waynus and Antlerman.

 

I am someone who has moved from a fairly conservative Christianity to liberal/progressive Christianity, and am not at the moment sure where my journey will take me. It is my intellectual honesty that has led me on this journey and I do not appreciate being labelled a hypocrite because of that!

 

If anything is calculated to make me stay a Christian rather than move on it is atheists or fundamentalists who tell me I can't be a Christian unless I am a fundamentalist!

 

There has never, ever been one uniform version of Christianity! Probably the same can be said of most religions and of atheism.

 

What is someone who sees themselves as part of the ever-changing and developing Christian culture and tradition, but with an understanding that every religion (or ideology/philosophy) is a human construct to call themselves?

 

Why should we surrender the word to the fundamentalists? I may well decide to stop calling myself a "Christian" but I don't particularly want to define myself as an "Ex-Christian" either! So far I've toyed with agnostic Christian, Christian humanist, Christian existentialist with Christian being the first or second term. Maybe I'll drop the Christian bit eventually, maybe not. Maybe I'll prefer to not label myself at all! Human Being sounds good to me!

 

In my country (Britain), I have also come across people who call themselves Hindu Christians etc. As far as I understand it this is a statement that they have adopted Christian values or beliefs to some extent (but not fundamentalist ones) but still wish to identify with their culture of origin! Fundamentalists would condemn this as "syncretism." So what!

[Reach]

What is someone who sees themselves as part of the ever-changing  and developing Christian culture and tradition, but with an understanding that every religion (or ideology/philosophy) is a human construct to call themselves?

...<snip>... Maybe I'll prefer to not label myself at all! Human Being sounds good to me!

What do you call yourself? An intelligent, open-minded, growing and evolving human being with immeasurable potential.

 

Labels are for those who need them. You don't have to own one. I use a label on this site for the convenience of others. Otherwise, the label is nearly useless to me. It tells just about as little about me as it does to label myself as a "blonde." Like you said, "So what!"

[Antlerman]

Thank you waynus and Antlerman.

 

I am  someone who has moved from a fairly conservative Christianity to liberal/progressive Christianity, and am not at the moment sure where my journey will take me. It is my intellectual honesty that has led me on this journey and I do not appreciate being labelled a hypocrite because of that!

 

If anything is calculated to make me stay a Christian rather than move on it is atheists or fundamentalists who tell me I can't be a Christian unless I am a fundamentalist! 

 

There has never, ever been one uniform version of Christianity!  Probably the same can be said of most religions and of atheism.

 

What is someone who sees themselves as part of the ever-changing  and developing Christian culture and tradition, but with an understanding that every religion (or ideology/philosophy) is a human construct to call themselves?

 

Why should we surrender the word to the fundamentalists? I may well decide to stop calling myself a "Christian" but I don't particularly want to define myself as an "Ex-Christian" either!  So far I've toyed with agnostic Christian, Christian humanist, Christian existentialist with Christian being the first or second term. Maybe I'll drop the Christian bit eventually, maybe not. Maybe I'll prefer to not label myself at all! Human Being sounds good to me!

 

In my country (Britain), I have also come across people who call themselves Hindu Christians etc. As far as I understand it this is a statement that they have adopted Christian values or beliefs to some extent (but not fundamentalist ones) but still wish to identify with their culture of origin!  Fundamentalists would condemn  this as  "syncretism." So what!

I very much relate to your journey and am happy you feel good about your choices. As I said in earlier posts that for myself I found I couldn't fit in to a more moderate Christianity despite wanting to still have a religious faith in my life, but I certainly respect those who can. I still wonder if my not being able to just accept a faith system without it being based in real human history and science is because it's a basic personality type difference, but I also wonder if it's because I've never been able to fully look at Christian faith outside of the context of fundamentalist literalism? Is it too entrenched in my way of looking at Christianity for me to fully excise it from my psyche? I don't know.

 

I understand intellectually that myth systems function outside the realm of rationality, I just wasn't able to incorporate them into my life without feeling like I was being intellectually dishonest. How could I feel whole and at peace when I felt like I was divorcing myself from my rational mind? Like I said though, I sincerely appreciate, and even envy, those who can incorporate it into their lives and feel totally at peace within themselves. Because I can't do that doesn't mean doesn't mean I judge those who can as being intellectually dishonest. They are not. Standards of rationality don't apply within myth systems.

 

The gripe that I do have against religions is mostly against fundamentalism. Then I feel those standards of rationality do apply since they are claiming their belief is rational and try to use science and history to support it. It is not supportable that way, and I will oppose them making a mockery of reason with their "faith-based science!" They should either modify their way of looking at their faith, or abandon it for pure rationality.

 

My sincerest best to you...

[dogmatically_challenged]

The gripe that I do have against religions is mostly against fundamentalism. Then I feel those standards of rationality do apply since they are claiming their belief is rational and try to use science and history to support it. It is not supportable that way, and I will oppose them making a mockery of reason with their "faith-based science!" They should either modify their way of looking at their faith, or abandon it for pure rationality.

Maybe post modern Christians can help people in understanding what the bible is and what it is not.

 

I am still reading about Post Modern Christianity and it is very strange to my fundy mind. I am still very fundy at times in my thinking, even though I am not a fundy xer. I was raised fundy, so I guess that should not be suprising to me.

 

Post Modern Christianity is not moderate xianity, it is a different animal all together it seems so far. I want to understand this better, so that I'm being fair, I am still suspicious of any that value the bible. I want real reasons to criticize this Post Modern Christianity and do not want to make straw men. The thing is, I still do not see any real value of the bible and I can't understand keeping the tradition.

 

Again, thanks for the links Waynus.

[TruthWarrior]

I don't see how the hell moderate christians would be atheist. Don't moderates believe in a god?

 

To say that they're not true christians is silly too. I think they do much better at following Jesus' teachings then their counterparts. Maybe they're not as good as following paul & the gangs writings, but so what. It shouldn't be that they have to be some mean old fundamentalist/literalist strawman to be considered a "real" christian.

 

I think at least a christian would be one who define themselves as such and attempt to follow's jesus'/christ's teachings at least. Not necessarily fully, perfectly or literally either.

[dogmatically_challenged]

TruthWarrior

Not necessarily fully, perfectly or literally either

This is why I am having troubles understanding Post Modern Christianity. If we look at all the christian writings, heretical and canonical and try and pick and chose from them for a different jesus, a jesus who was not a mental/spiritual terrorist, is it authoritive? How can they demonstrate an authoritive understanding of christ in order to be disciples? What really are thier goals in thier theology? What methods do they use to come by thier perception of jesus?

 

How different is jesus portrayed in the heretical books than what we got from the book that evolved from the councils?

 

I like the idea of treating the bible as a flawed human invention in trying to percieve god. That seems to be the direction that the Post Modern Christians are going. However, I do not think there is any authoritive way to prove exactly what jesus taught. I think the fact that he most probably never existed has a lot to do with that. How can you be a christian, a disciple of christ, if there is no authoritive way to show what he did teach and did not teach?

[Antlerman]

I like the idea of treating the bible as a flawed human invention in trying to percieve god. That seems to be the direction that the Post Modern Christians are going. However, I do not think there is any authoritive way to prove exactly what jesus taught. I think the fact that he most probably never existed has a lot to do with that. How can you be a christian, a disciple of christ, if there is no authoritive way to show what he did teach and did not teach?

Maybe it's irrelevant if Jesus really spoke it. According to the Q document studies, most likely there were stages of these saying that were originally just words of the personification of Wisdom. Later it was "Jesus said (these words)." Then later it was the historical setup of people and places, insert "Jesus said (these words)."

 

The point is it doesn't matter who said it. It's the content, so the mythical historical settings are just a vehicle for the sayings. Those sayings can be very good, but also not so good. It is a pick and choose sort of thing, and it's OK because it's being authoritative is irrelevant. Budddah had good words too, but did Buddah really say them? Who knows? Does it matter? Are the words meaningful anyway?

 

Would our moderate friends agree with this?

[Checkmate]

How can you be a christian, a disciple of christ, if there is no authoritive way to show what he did teach and did not teach?

I don't think it matters. For the first few hundred years there was NO BIBLE as we know it today, and yet there were "Christians". It was the IDEA of "Christ" that mattered most, not any set of scriptures. It wasn't until Constantine got involved and commanded the RECOGNIZED church leaders to hammer out a cogent set of scriptures for all to adhere.

 

But as we've virtually concluded here in this thread...DOES IT REALLY MATTER?

 

Bible or no bible. Fundy, liberal, post modern, Catholic, Baptist, Charismatic, etc. In the final analysis, does it really matter? It doesn't to me. If THEY want to call themselves "Christian", that's all I need to hear. Any other adjectives or qualifiers is a moot point.

 

Once they claim the mantle of Religious Believer of Whatever Faith System, that is the point that I put my shields up and prepare for a bullshit storm of epic proportions.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Maybe it's irrelevant if Jesus really spoke it.  According to the Q document studies, most likely there were stages of these saying that were originally just words of the personification of Wisdom.  Later it was "Jesus said (these words)."  Then later it was the historical setup of people and places, insert "Jesus said (these words)."

Then the Post Modern Christian should have no problem with heathens criticizing the bible and Xianity. We are hostile towards Xianity for good reasons. Some of us are hostile of the bible for a reason. If Post Modern Christians are out in the open about cherry picking then I have no prob with them, but I DO have a problem with fundies and moderate xers who still hold that the bible is a god inspired book and is all about love and tolerence. Post modern Christians will just have to realize that we aren't necessarily talking about them in our criticizms of Xianity.

 

 

The point is it doesn't matter who said it.  It's the content, so the mythical historical settings are just a vehicle for the sayings.  Those sayings can be very good, but also not so good.

Precisely why I am against claims that the bible is inspired by a god and is PERFECT in teaching morality.

 

It is a pick and choose sort of thing, and it's OK because it's being authoritative is irrelevant.  Budddah had good words too, but did Buddah really say them?  Who knows?  Does it matter?

 

Are the words meaningful anyway?

I understand this. I do this very thing with the bible, Tao Te Ching, as well as a little from the Buddha. It is very hard imaging a theist doing this very thing. I can see atheists being able to do this, but not theists. If they can really do this, then I whole heartedly approve. I like that some superstitionists can ADMIT that the bible is not authoritive and can be questioned and parts rejected.

 

 

Would our moderate friends agree with this?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Moderate xers cherry pick yet won't admit they are cherry picking. They won't admit the bible is not god inspired and that the bible IS NOT perfect for teaching spirituality/morality. They will not admit that the jesus in their bible is a mental and spiritual terrorist. Post Modern Christianity seems very different from moderate xianity.

[Antlerman]

They will not admit that the jesus in their bible is a mental and spiritual terrorist. Post Modern Christianity seems very different from moderate xianity.

Maybe I don’t fully understand the difference. What again defines Moderate versus Post Modern? I may have missed the distinction.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Maybe I don’t fully understand the difference.  What again defines Moderate versus Post Modern?  I may have missed the distinction.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Most moderates do not admit that they cherry pick the bible and they do not admit that the bible is not a god inspired book. It is still authoritive to them. They support the fundies indirectly and directly.

 

That is very different than openly cherry picking the bible while maintaining that that book is NOT god inspired. If I am correct the Progressive Christian sees the bible as it is. The myths. Imperfect attempts at percieving god.

 

I must read more to be really sure, but this seems to be thier stance.

[Ouroboros]

Post Modern, Progressive and Moderate Christians are all new terms to me, but I'm glad that there are some more descriptive adjectives for the Christians that doesn't fall into fundamentalist, extremist or conservative groups. It would be nice to know a bit more about it, and if there are Christians actually labelling themselves as such.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Post Modern, Progressive and Moderate Christians are all new terms to me, but I'm glad that there are some more descriptive adjectives for the Christians that doesn't fall into fundamentalist, extremist or conservative groups. It would be nice to know a bit more about it, and if there are Christians actually labelling themselves as such.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I feel the same. But even Liberal xers at the very least indirectly support fundies by maintaing that the bible is authoritive. They do not admit that the jesus in thier bible is a mental and spritual terrorist in parts of the bible. They do harm by that in my opinion.

[indoctrinated]

<snip>

I still wonder if my not being able to just accept a faith system without it being based in real human history and science is because it's a basic personality type difference, but I also wonder if it's because I've never been able to fully look at Christian faith outside of the context of fundamentalist literalism?  Is it too entrenched in my way of looking at Christianity for me to fully excise it from my psyche?  I don't know. 

 

I understand intellectually that myth systems function outside the realm of rationality, I just wasn't able to incorporate them into my life without feeling like I was being intellectually dishonest.  How could I feel whole and at peace when I felt like I was divorcing myself from my rational mind?

<snip> 

My sincerest best to you...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks Antlerman (and also to Reach for your comment.) One academic theologian has said that it is the "all or nothing" mentality of fundamentalism which is so difficult to escape from. I too am not sure whether I can feel comfortable in the long term with a progressive Christianity or whether I will decide to just stop calling myself a Christian.

 

As I understand it, people here mean by "moderate" Christians those who try to "explain away" the difficulties in the Bible while still trying to hold to traditional Christianity. I respect this moderate stance though I think I have moved beyond it.

 

Many Christians for instance do not take the virgin birth stories literally and think that the resurrection was not an actual physical event (i.e. the tomb may not have been empty.) They would say that the resurrection appearances were more in the nature of visions. They might say that Jesus is alive in some "spiritual" sense. They often do not hold the "penal substitution" theory of why Jesus died. There are other classical (i.e. going way back in the Christian tradition) explanations of the death of Jesus as well as newer ones. They do not believe that the Bible is inerrant and do not read it in a strictly literal way.

 

They will argue (correctly in my view) that even a fairly conservative reading of the Bible does not support many fundamentalist teachings about women, "family values", sexuality, hell, creationism, supernatural beings and events, the end of the world etc. These are usually based on distorted interpretations with no regard for either literary or cultural context. (Some of the fundamentalist teachings are innovations even within the mainstream Christian tradition. They do not have any right to the claim that they represent true Christianity!)

 

There are many moderate Christians like this; they just don't shout as loud as the fundamentalists! I can only speak for my country, but I think the real shame/scandal is that many of our clergy think like this but in public they hide their true opinions. I am not sure whether this is out of fear or because they think less educated Christians cannot understand (which is patronising!) or what.

 

However most moderate Christians are theists and trinitarian. I would say I am now agnostic because I do not think it is possible to either prove or disprove belief in god(s). I think that religions are all human constructs. I think that Jesus was not divine, except possibly in the sense that any human being living an authentic and compassionate life could be called that.

 

I welcome opportunities to learn from any tradition or philosophy which has wisdom to offer about the human condition. However I am so steeped in the Christian tradition that, while I no longer take it literally, it is the story/myth or whatever which comes most naturally to me. At the moment I am still trying to work out whether it is possible for me to keep the helpful bits and lose the unhelpful bits. I am not sure if it is. But like Antlerman I am happy for and respect those who can.

[Eponymic]

I welcome opportunities to learn from any tradition or philosophy which has wisdom to offer about the human condition. However I am so steeped in the Christian tradition that, while I no longer take it literally, it is the story/myth or whatever which comes most naturally to me.  At the moment I am still trying to work out whether it is possible for me to keep the helpful bits and lose the unhelpful bits. I am not sure if it is. But like Antlerman I am happy for and respect those who can.

 

I'm just tickled beyond all recognition that you are willing to be so open about your spirituality and are continually learning.

 

That's always a brilliant thing.

 

More power to ya eh!

[dr_funkenstein]

I feel the same. But even Liberal xers at the very least indirectly support fundies by maintaing that the bible is authoritive. They do not admit that the jesus in thier bible is a mental and spritual terrorist in parts of the bible. They do harm by that in my opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My own father, who is a Baptist minister (Australian, so not what you would consider a typical American Baptist) is quite liberal. Whenever I debate theological issues with him, it's very hard to nail down exactly what he does believe in.

 

You can throw into question the historicity of the texts, point out contradictions in the bible - and he's ok with that. His interpretation of what it means for the bible to be inspired is a lot more inclusive than the fundie understanding.

 

To me, if you can't demonstrate that there really did exist a person called Jesus who walked and talked, taught, performed miracles, was crucified and rose from the dead, then you have no basis for faith other than something very intangible and wishy-washy.

 

It's really frustrating trying to argue with him because every time you hit the bible or his belief system with something solid it's like he dodges it somehow. He's slippery. He gives ground and accepts your point, responding with things like "these are the issues that as a Christian you have to struggle with, but when you come to grips with them you emerge a stronger Christian". I take that to mean essentially "when I'm confronted with something that threatens my faith I'll simply elevate my faith to a more esoteric level that requires less and less to be grounded in reality."

 

At the end of the day I suppose it comes down to the fact that he believes a priori in the existence of a benevolent deity who wants to have a relationship with his creation, but the details of "redemptive history" are sullied by the hands of men. He's one of those guys who when presented with the evidence that his God has throughout history always reflected human ideals (i.e. God moving from a bloodthirsty barbarian to a benevolent saviour) responds by claiming that God has revealed his plan for salvation slowly and always in a way that the people of the time could relate to.

 

Anyway that's my rant - my point is Christians like that are so hard to argue against because they're so fluid - it's almost like they don't believe in anything at all, and yet they still have faith.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Thanks Antlerman (and also to Reach for your comment.)  One academic theologian has said that it is the "all or nothing" mentality of fundamentalism which is so difficult to escape from. I too am not sure whether I can feel comfortable in the long term with a progressive Christianity or whether I will decide to just stop calling myself a Christian.

The main problem is theology is dishonest a lot of the times and only anthropology and honest acedemic's can shed light on what the bible writers meant.

 

As I understand it, people here mean by "moderate" Christians those who try to "explain away" the difficulties in the Bible while still trying to hold to traditional Christianity.  I respect this moderate stance though I think I have moved beyond it.

I do not respect liers. I do not condone a god inspired book. Anyone who says that the bible is inspired by a god is giving that book power that it should not have. It is not perfect and it is not inspired by a god. Even Liberal xers indirectly support the fundies just by believing and encouraging others to believe the book to be god inspired. The bible has bigotry in it, and denominations sprout from denominations. Who knows what future xians will be like? Who knows how they will interpret it. Not everyone is a bible scholar, yet many believe the bible to be inspired by a god and that is very dangerous.

 

 

Many Christians for instance do not take the virgin birth stories literally and think that the resurrection was not an actual physical event (i.e. the tomb may not have been empty.) They would say that the resurrection appearances were more in the nature of visions. They might say that Jesus is alive in some "spiritual" sense.  They often do not hold the "penal substitution" theory of why Jesus died. There are other classical (i.e. going way back in the Christian tradition) explanations of the death of Jesus as well as newer ones.  They do not believe that the Bible is inerrant and do not read it in a strictly literal way.

Only anthropologists can shed real light on Christianity and what the bible writers meant. Theology is dishonest and unauthoritive. Liberal Christianity is ineffective in reducing the harm that comes from fundies and the reason why is the liberal theologies are every bit as dishonest as the fundy theologies. To say that the bible writers were inspired by god in any way is harmful.

 

They will argue (correctly in my view) that even a fairly conservative reading of the Bible does not support many fundamentalist teachings about women, "family values", sexuality, hell, creationism, supernatural beings and events, the end of the world etc. These are usually based on distorted interpretations with no regard for either literary or cultural context. (Some of the fundamentalist teachings are innovations even within the mainstream Christian tradition. They do not have any right to the claim that they represent true Christianity!)

Sorry, only anthropologists with honest methods can shed light on what the individual bible writers meant in thier writings. The bible gives very many exanples of women being chattel and slaves. Paul is a sexists as well. The bible is bigoted and jesus is a spiritual/ mental terrorist.

 

 

There are many moderate Christians like this; they just don't shout as loud as the fundamentalists!  I can only speak for my country, but I think the real shame/scandal is that many of our clergy think like this but in public they hide their true opinions. I am not sure whether this is out of fear or because they think less educated Christians cannot understand (which is patronising!) or what.

The bible is good for nothing and people can manage perfectly well without it. Xianity is a crutch. Most people do not have the time to understand the bible and can be duped by some one who cherry picks it while claiming to be a man of god or a bible expert. The bible should not be considered the word of a god. That idea is dangerous. Xian history should be enough to show how dangerous that idea is.

[Antlerman]

There are many moderate Christians like this; they just don't shout as loud as the fundamentalists!  I can only speak for my country, but I think the real shame/scandal is that many of our clergy think like this but in public they hide their true opinions. I am not sure whether this is out of fear or because they think less educated Christians cannot understand (which is patronising!) or what.

 

My thoughts about this are that the clergy feels it is too esoteric to speak directly in terms of it being a myth system. They just speak using the mythology. It's not per se dishonesty in their minds, because it's the inspirational connotation of the words that are using, not the literal meaning. If pressed into a corner by the average parishioner they would probably try to evade some, feeling that it would likely not be understood (I’ve actually experienced that myself seeking answers). I don’t know that they would necessarily feel it was patronizing them, but rather avoiding what they don’t deem really important since it’s the meaning that’s important, not the science of it. The science of it might do more harm than good. Amongst peers however, I'm sure the conversation would be more open along lines like this.

 

I'm speculating about all this, but that's what I suspect. Is that wrong of them? For me I’d rather know the truth. But for others, they may be happier just believing. Don’t you miss Santa Clause? He was a feel good magic being to me as a child. I miss the magic sometimes, but I'm happier this way despite losing the myth.