Moderate Christians

[dogmatically_challenged]

I don't think either of those things about the Bible. I do not teach them or encourage others to. I try whenever I have the opportunity to put forward the point of view that the Bible is a human creation. I encourage people to use their same critical faculties when reading it that they would with any other book.

Why didn't you just say so. Why didn't you make it clear that you only value the good parts of the bible and that you can reject the bigotry that is in it, instead of coming off as an apologist. Many ExChristians are a victims of the trash that is in the bible and not the gems. The gems are irelevant here.

 

People have only good things to say about scripture in the real world and are blind to the fact that the bible contains more trash in it than gems. All you've done so far is defend the bible until I pressed you.

 

I do not blame the Bible for the evils that it is used to justify. I blame the attitude to the Bible which makes it into something it is not.

The bible does not wholy support your perception of it. The book is to blame until it comes with instructions. Instructions that inform people that it is a mythology book.

 

 

I am resisting the temptation to reply to your other points because I don't want this to develop into me "defending" Christianity. I didn't come here to do that.

You havent a leg to stand on and you have come off as an apologist. All you had to do was admit that the bible has bigotry in it so that you didn't come off as an apologist. Apologetics is not wise to do in the debate forum, unless you are ready to debate. If you can't admit that jesus comes off as a megalomanaic and a spiritual/mental terrorist in parts of the N.T. then you are a nut.

 

There are many things that make me angry about Christianity and that I have personally been damaged by.  If this were the rants section I might indulge myself in some rhetoric about that! I have certainly needed to express that anger at times and to work through some of the unhelpful (understatement) effects that Christianity has had on me.

That was not a part of your apologetics in this thread. Why did you not say so instead of giving me apologetics?

 

 

 

But even so I cannot see everything in such black or white terms. I cannot lump all Christians together anymore than I can lump all Pagans, all Moslems, all Jews, all Hindus, all atheists etc together. The friend that I spoke of earlier respects me and my faith, not Christianity in general. And I respect her too because I know her as a person. When she goes on about Christians I do not seek to defend Christianity at all. That would be totally crass in view of her experience!

You can not point out any such perception on my part. There is more crap in the bible than gems. That does not mean you can't draw on the good parts of the bible either, but people should be ready to admit that the bible has hatefulness in it as well. Yes I am talking about the N.T.

 

But this is a debating forum. I am defending moderation and understanding. I will stand up and be counted against Christians or atheists who spread hate and bigotry. I will also encourage respect for and  dialogue with all persons of good-will. This is not the same as agreeing with everything they believe.

 

I just wanted to make that clear! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All I saw was xian apologetics from you. That is not wise in the debate forum unless you are willing to defend your stance through debate.

 

You are hardly defending understanding by sweeping bigoted scripture under the rug by using the few loving sayings attributed to jesus and ignoring the bigotry.

 

That was what you did in your sermon to your xian friends at church. This is dishonest unless you are telling them that the bible is a mythology book and that we gota be critical of the bible when reading it. People should know about the bibles flaws as well as the good things in it.

 

If moderation means being silent about hate speech in the bible then you can keep your moderation, as that is anti-free thought and is not in the spirit of understanding.

 

Do not presume to show me my intolerance if you can not refute my claims about the bible as well as what many xians do because of what is in the bible. If I am right then there is not a damn thing wrong with telling people. If you were a free thinker you'd know that.

 

I now can see that you to, have suffered, I have just recently read you in other threads and understand you a little better, and I am sorry youv'e been hurt. I do not understand your clinging to the label xian. I know that there are good parts to the bible, but there really aren't enough that makes the book a good book. Why you call yourself a xian is beyond me, but hey what ever floats your boat.

[dogmatically_challenged]

I don't think either of those things about the Bible. I do not teach them or encourage others to. I try whenever I have the opportunity to put forward the point of view that the Bible is a human creation. I encourage people to use their same critical faculties when reading it that they would with any other book. I do not blame the Bible for the evils that it is used to justify. I blame the attitude to the Bible which makes it into something it is not.

 

There are many things that make me angry about Christianity and that I have personally been damaged by.  If this were the rants section I might indulge myself in some rhetoric about that! I have certainly needed to express that anger at times and to work through some of the unhelpful (understatement) effects that Christianity has had on me.

 

But even so I cannot see everything in such black or white terms. I cannot lump all Christians together anymore than I can lump all Pagans, all Moslems, all Jews, all Hindus, all atheists etc together. The friend that I spoke of earlier respects me and my faith, not Christianity in general. And I respect her too because I know her as a person. When she goes on about Christians I do not seek to defend Christianity at all. That would be totally crass in view of her experience!

 

But this is a debating forum. I am defending moderation and understanding. I will stand up and be counted against Christians or atheists who spread hate and bigotry. I will also encourage respect for and  dialogue with all persons of good-will. This is not the same as agreeing with everything they believe.

 

I just wanted to make that clear! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I respect your motives. I agree that pointing out intolerance is a good thing, but you got to be able to point it out. Anger and sarcasm does not necessarily = intolerance.

 

I see the value of most everything you've said above, but being timid about what the bible really is, is not a good thing. Silence is as good as condoning or endorsing ignorance.

 

I think you are a very nice person and you can be a xian for all I care, just don't be silent about the bad parts of the bible and give people the impression that open specific criticism on the bible is intolerant. Not on an ExChristian board.

[Antlerman]

I personaly don't care how they view  the bible so long as they admit that it contains an extremely intolerant stance against people of other religions, gays and atheists. That they admit that not all sayings attributed to jesus is about love and tolerance.

 

I am hoping that the heretical books show us a different jesus.

I think from what I've been hearing from Indoctrinated and Waynus is that this is what they are saying, though I don't mean to speak for them. Are they cherry picking? I suppose in a sense I could look at it that way, but look at any religion. I just think they're approaching it as a mythology. Them saying "this is true and this is not", is probably not what's going on. It's probably more a matter of saying, "this speaks to me, but I don't agree with that.” Authoritative is not part of the vocabulary of a mythology. Whereas for Biblical literalists, it is. It's an apples to oranges comparison.

 

I should state that I am finding this conversation with Indoctrinated and Waynus to be very beneficial to me and I’m thankful to them for their openness and honesty. Though main-stream religion proved unsatisfactory to me, trying to understand how religious moderates can operate within it is something I've been trying to wrap my mind around for quite some time. It's helpful to me to be more understanding and accepting of people who really shouldn't be viewed in the same lump as the extremists.

 

I guess maybe I’m trying to be a Moderate Atheist?

[dogmatically_challenged]

I think from what I've been hearing from Indoctrinated and Waynus is that this is what they are saying, though I don't mean to speak for them.  Are they cherry picking?  I suppose in a sense I could look at it that way, but look at any religion.  I just think they're approaching it as a mythology.  Them saying "this is true and this is not", is probably not what's going on.  It's probably more a matter of saying, "this speaks to me, but I don't agree with that.” Authoritative is not part of the vocabulary of a mythology.  Whereas for Biblical literalists, it is.  It's an apples to oranges comparison.

 

I should state that I am finding this conversation with Indoctrinated and Waynus to be very beneficial to me and I’m thankful to them for their openness and honesty.  Though main-stream religion proved unsatisfactory to me, trying to understand how religious moderates can operate within it is something I've been trying to wrap my mind around for quite some time.  It's helpful to me to be more understanding and accepting of people who really shouldn't be viewed in the same lump as the extremists.

 

I guess maybe I’m trying to be a Moderate Atheist?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I cherry pick too, but what you and them are pointing out is really hard for me to grasp. My bally wack is math and machines and not people and mysticism. hehe.

 

I think I am understanding a little better though with what you have said.

 

If that is how they percieve the bible then they have the responsiblity to make a bible with instructions to appreciate it the way they do, until then they will get lumped in with other xers.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Yes I am putting pressure on them to teach people how they percieve the bible and to teach that it is mythology.

 

Xianity as it has been and is now has earned its come upin's from unbelievers.

[dogmatically_challenged]

If it means anything I accept them as heathens and as Christians, so long as they aren't bullshiters and apologists in defending the bible. So long as the admit that there is intolerance in the bible.

[Antlerman]

Yes I am putting pressure on them to teach people how they percieve the bible and to teach that it is mythology.

 

Xianity as it has been and is now has earned its come upin's from unbelievers.

I see your point, but what do you suppose would happen if the preacher down at the local Lutheran Church stood up this Sunday and said, "The Bible is mythology and should be not be understood as fully authoritative and binding in everything it says." Though in a sense how he normally speaks about it he may be saying this in effect, coming out this directly I suspect would cause his congregation to either all leave, or the board would fire him and bring someone else in. Would they really understand that, or would they view him as trying to deny them God?

 

Most people at the church want to believe in it, but not necessarily that every word on the pages of the Bible is real. It's another thing to have a religious leader deal with them academically, rather than mythically which is what they want. Those that would appreciate it, like you or me, don't approach religion like your average parishioner. We we're fundis who insisted on it being accurate because it's the Truth! I don't think the average Christian requires it to be that.

 

It's an amusing thought though to see what would actually happen if every church everywhere did that all at once this Sunday!

[indoctrinated]

<snip>

You havent a leg to stand on and you have come off as an apologist.

<snip>

You are hardly defending understanding by sweeping bigoted scripture under the rug by using the few loving sayings attributed to jesus and ignoring the bigotry.

 

That was what you did in your sermon to your xian friends at church.

<snip>

Do not presume to show me my intolerance if you can not refute my claims about the bible as well as what many xians do because of what is in the bible. If I am right then there is not a damn thing wrong with telling people. If you were a free thinker you'd know that.

 

I now can see that you to, have suffered, I have just recently read you in other threads and understand you a little better, and I am sorry youv'e been hurt. I do not understand your clinging to the label xian. I know that there are good parts to the bible, but there really aren't enough that makes the book a good book. Why you call yourself a xian is beyond me, but hey what ever floats your boat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I didn't mean to come off as an apologist or to criticise you for intolerance. My apologies if that's what it came across as. Of course it is right and okay for you to say what you think about the Bible and to point out to Christians the inconsistencies etc.

Thanks for the postscript!

 

I was trying to explain why I disagree with the idea that moderate Christians are all closet atheists, though some may be! Also trying to distinguish between different types of Christian positions and why I don't want to lump everybody together. Actually some progressive Christians could possibly be called atheists. They have what is called a non-realist view of God. i.e. Gods don't really exist; they are a sort of picture language or mythology that humans construct.

 

Partly I am still calling myself a Christian until I figure out what I think about various things. I know that I am not happy about many aspects of Christianity, but there are some issues I still need to get my head round. I am not sure where I will end up.

 

About the sermon. I don't think I swept anything under the rug. I actually took the half dozen or so verses that are commonly used to justify homophobia and preached on them. I used a variety of approaches depending on the context of each verse. Basically you could say I subverted those bits of the Bible! I also was quite direct and specific about what I was talking about (even used a few terms you don't often hear in the pulpit!). I challenged people to think about their attitudes. I did it in a positive way because I find persuasion works better than head on confrontation. But I did not ignore the issues or arguments. I can't explain it more without preaching the whole thing.

[dogmatically_challenged]

I didn't mean to come off as an apologist or to criticise you for intolerance.  My apologies if that's what it came across as.  Of course it is right and okay for you to say what you think about the Bible and to point out to Christians the inconsistencies etc.

Thanks for the postscript! 

 

I was trying to explain why I disagree with the idea that moderate Christians are all closet atheists, though some may be! Also trying to distinguish between different types of Christian positions and why I don't want to lump everybody together.  Actually some progressive Christians could possibly be called atheists. They have what is called a non-realist view of God. i.e. Gods don't really exist; they are a sort of picture language or mythology that humans construct.

 

Partly I am still calling myself a Christian until I figure out what I think about  various things. I know that I am not happy about many aspects of Christianity, but there are some issues I still need to get my head round. I am not sure where I will end up.

 

About the sermon. I don't think I swept anything under the rug. I actually took the half dozen or so verses that are commonly used to justify homophobia and preached on them. I used a variety of approaches depending on the context of each verse. Basically you could say I subverted those bits of the Bible!  I also was quite direct and specific about what I was talking about (even used a few terms you don't often hear in the pulpit!). I challenged people to think about their attitudes. I did it in a positive way because I find persuasion works better than head on confrontation. But I did not ignore the issues or arguments.  I can't explain it more without preaching the whole thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was trying to explain why I disagree with the idea that moderate Christians are all closet atheists, though some may be!

I think it is pretty obvious that some folks say that they are xians and are out in the open or can be closet atheists, agnostics , agnostic theists, or generic theists who see all the bible as pure fiction. If you say you are this or that in theism, agnosticism or atheism then I'll take your word for it brother. It would be mean not to.

 

Also trying to distinguish between different types of Christian positions and why I don't want to lump everybody together.  Actually some progressive Christians could possibly be called atheists. They have what is called a non-realist view of God. i.e. Gods don't really exist; they are a sort of picture language or mythology that humans construct.

If jesus was an historical person then you aint a xian, because you can't show what he really taught in order to be a follower or student of christ. It does not matter that believing xians don't have any proof either, YOU ARE A RATIONAL PERSON...and they are not when it comes to believing in a historical abraham and moses: prophets of THE ONE TRUE GOD, as well as believing in a historical magic man: son of the one true god, who died for the sins of all mankind. Xians believe in books that tell of the accounts of jesus magic and all. Historicaly, a xian wasn't laughed at and ridiculed for thier beliefs for no reason. Are you a cretin (xian)? NO.

 

Heck, I think I'll just make up my own jesus philosophy and I'll claim that to be a xian you must be an intolerant war mongering martyr, who is only loving to true xians in order to be a student of christ. You know, like the neocons do. I can be a xian too just by cherry picking what I like and ignoring the good things jesus allegedly said in the books and say my jesus philosophy is that of christ and everything else on jesus is all lies, or just simply ignore the good parts and sandbag against other jesus "quotes" that teach loving tolerance. Your the other side of that coin who instead draws on the few good things jesus allegedly said while turning a blind eye to the bad bits that jesus allegedly said. If your a xian then I can be one too even though I'll only take into account the worst of what jesus said. My theology is equal to yours as all theology is bullshit. It is unreasonable to build your jesus philosophy off from theology. Theolgy is dishonest.

 

To be reasonable, to be a xian you gota prove what jesus really taught, and follow it if it is agreable to your values, OR you can be called a xian after you prove the original tradition was meant to be mythology that illistrated moral values....THAT YOU ACTUALY AGREE WITH, and not simply ignore the parts you don't like. Tall order. To do neither and still call yourself a xian is nonsensical. Heretical xers just add more confusion to things and make it harder to criticize the canical books as well as xianity that is from those books.

 

Even if you don't agree with me here, you should realize that when we say xian we aren't talking about you, as very few of us consider you a xian. I consider anyone who believes that jesus was actually an historical, magic man, who is son of THE one true god, a xian. That view has been held by xiandom a heck of a lot longer than your denomination. I aint gonna stop using the label xian to mean superstious xians just because of a few heretics who can't admit that some of the sayings attributed to jesus is actually disagreable with thier own values. The books as is comes with no instructions to percieve the legend of jesus as allegorical and mythological. If the tradition realy did start out that way there will never be a way to know.

[Caretaker]

I tend to believe that those who are moderate Christians are more likely to be Deist in all practicality than Atheist.

[Amethyst]

I tend to believe that those who are moderate Christians are more likely to be Deist in all practicality than Atheist.

 

I agree. I think they are either Deist or Agnostic.

[Amanda]

I aint gonna stop using the label xian to mean superstious xians just because of a few heretics who can't admit that some of the sayings attributed to jesus is actually disagreable with thier own values. The books as is comes with no instructions to percieve the legend of jesus as allegorical and mythological. If the tradition realy did start out that way there will never be a way to know.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

DC, my friend, may I ask what part of the Bible with the teachings directly attributed to Jesus would be against my own values? True, it comes with no instructions, yet you know that the interpretations from the original manuscript from which it was taken could use some improvement. Please aknowledge one of these entries that you find fault, and lets examine it closer. Thanks again my friend for your participation in this matter.

[dogmatically_challenged]

I tend to believe that those who are moderate Christians are more likely to be Deist in all practicality than Atheist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think your right Khan. A lot of these folks seem to be fairly rational theists with deist leanings. Deists that kind of believe in a personal god are not really theists or deists. I think Thomas Paine is a good example of this.

 

Others may be agnostic theists or agnostics.

 

I know how hard it is to let go of gods. Before I became an atheist for a time I was an agnostic theist with deist leanings. I hoped for and kinda believed in a personal god for a time after I became an apostate.

 

My silly position now is, If I am wrong about gods, then we aren't supposed to know for sure that IT or THEY exist. hehe.

 

The majority of the time I do not believe in any gods. I am confident that there are no personal gods that is for sure. I am an agnostic atheist when it comes to a creator and pretty much a strong atheist when it comes to personal gods.

[dogmatically_challenged]

DC, my friend, may I ask what part of the Bible with the teachings directly attributed to Jesus would be against my own values?

I can't criticise the original manuscripts..not yet. I can only criticize the bibles that are used by most xers. I have seen that your methods are post and adhoc, as well as adding and taking away from scripture/equivocations, and circular logic/preconcived ideology that you set out to prove. You are a very squirrelly apologist and I have no patience for such nonsense and I am trying to avoid being an asshole so I must avoid these discussions with fundies and mystic apologists. I am only interested in what rational heathens have to say on this.

 

True, it comes with no instructions, yet you know that the interpretations from the original manuscript from which it was taken could use some improvement. Please aknowledge one of these entries that you find fault, and lets examine it closer. Thanks again my friend for your participation in this matter. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed.

 

However, no one will ever be authoritive when it comes to the jesus tradition outside of anthropology and nontheist seekers of truth as outright theists will always have traces of the mind virus and can not be trusted to avoid logical fallacies in thier search. Can you sell your theology in an authoritive way? Xians want to appeal to authority and are addicts in absolute truths. Can you really be authoritive without fallacies?

[dogmatically_challenged]

I think your right Khan. A lot of these folks seem to be fairly rational theists with deist leanings. Deists that kind of believe in a personal god are not really theists or deists. I think Thomas Paine is a good example of this.

 

Others may be agnostic theists or agnostics.

 

I know how hard it is to let go of gods. Before I became an atheist for a time I was an agnostic theist with deist leanings. I hoped for and kinda believed in a personal god for a time after I became an apostate.

 

My silly position now is, If I am wrong about gods, then we aren't supposed to know for sure that IT or THEY exist. hehe.

 

The majority of the time I do not believe in any gods. I am confident that there are no personal gods that is for sure. I am an agnostic atheist when it comes to a creator and pretty much a strong atheist when it comes to personal gods.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Some moderate xians may become agnostics or atheists, but never the less some will still be closeted or closeted with most people in thier lives in thier nontheism, while still clinging to the label xian.

 

Thats thier right, even though it is silly as well as a condoning ( some of them do), of others who believe that the bible is inspired by a god and that jesus is a magicaly undead man who senselessly appeased THE creator through suicide and that jesus is the only moral way and is more important than human achievement in THIS world.

 

This conding/enabling is disgusting. Since the bible is not consistent in teaching love and tolerance, supporting or condoning the belief in a god inspired book is the antithesis to rational discrimination and is a condoning and a supporting of the bigotry of the bible writers that so many worship. Some xians rely on scripture that tells us to be nice to sinners, yet they are still bigoted in thier perception of atheists, homosexuals and people who worship other gods, so long as they believe in/agree with bible gods judgments. Those xians support the foundation of the hateful activist xians. The bigotry.

 

Moderate xians are only just barely putting a bandaid on a cancer that should be debunked for nonxians and xians alike.

[indoctrinated]

I think your right Khan. A lot of these folks seem to be fairly rational theists with deist leanings. Deists that kind of believe in a personal god are not really theists or deists. I think Thomas Paine is a good example of this.

 

Others may be agnostic theists or agnostics.

 

I know how hard it is to let go of gods. Before I became an atheist for a time I was an agnostic theist with deist leanings. I hoped for and kinda believed in a personal god for a time after I became an apostate.

 

My silly position now is, If I am wrong about gods, then we aren't supposed to know for sure that IT or THEY exist. hehe.

 

The majority of the time I do not believe in any gods. I am confident that there are no personal gods that is for sure. I am an agnostic atheist when it comes to a creator and pretty much a strong atheist when it comes to personal gods.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, I agree with the three posts on this subject. I'd also add that there are a lot of people who go to church and call themselves Christians who have never thought about any of this. They go to church on Sunday, like singing hymns and the social side. In general they don't study the Bible and don't know very much about what it says. They try to be good people and are fairly tolerant of other people's beliefs, mainly because their own are very ill-defined and wishy-washy. I suppose you would call this "social Christianity" or "folk religion" and it is very common in the UK.

 

Someone once told me that I think too much. I found that really annoying. How can anyone think too much! But sometimes I wish I could be like the people I have just described!

 

So I am in transition, and from your post it seems you understand that place.

[indoctrinated]

Thats thier right, even though it is silly as well as a condoning ( some of them do), of others who believe that the bible is inspired by a god and that jesus is a magicaly undead man who senselessly appeased THE creator through suicide and that jesus is the only moral way and is more important than human achievement in THIS world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is the crux of the problem for many radical and progressive Christians.

 

I thought that it was possible to stay in the mainline Protestant (non-fundy Anglican/Methodist) church whilst professing more rational beliefs about the Bible and Christianity. Some progressive Christians think that they can "reform" the church, but I am starting to realise that will never happen.

 

There is too much dishonesty. There are too many Church leaders who will privately agree with the more radical Christians but who will not say so in public.

 

I am starting to think that staying within the system is too much of a compromise. I always try to be honest about my thoughts and ideas and I think that I have done some good by that. But it is becoming too much of a strain!

 

And I really do not want to be identified with ( much less condone) the loony fundies.

 

I just haven't worked out yet what to do about it.

[EdwardAbbey]

I agree, I have said that all along.

The whole of the western world is shaped by Christian thinking. Unless you grew up in anon western country you like the rest of us have been effected by it.

 

Again that is exactly what I have done. Biblical Christianity is a fairly modern development.

 

Jesus was not the author of Christianity. 

 

Why must I be careful? I don't believe any of that actually happened. Then again I would argue neither did most of the NT writers.

 

Seems like you have your answer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn't that nice. so here we have gone from moderate to pseudo Christian onto the unbiblical, revised, upgraded, restructured, edited believer in the Christian God of the bible that is more suitable to your desires of what a deity should be. Interesting take you have on the Christian God and at the same time you don't believe in the god of the bible.

 

But you still believe you're a Christian.

[Amanda]

Isn't that nice. so here we have gone from moderate to pseudo Christian onto the unbiblical, revised, upgraded, restructured, edited believer in the Christian God of the bible that is more suitable to your desires of what a deity should be. Interesting take you have on the Christian God and at the same time you don't believe in the god of the bible.

 

But you still believe you're a Christian.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Edward Abbey, are you saying there is anything wrong with him being able to have this personally intimate interpretation of Christianity? Forums are made to debate... which he has done explicitly and respectfully, IMO. I guess he has nontraditional beliefs from nontraditional resources.. perhaps much like those in the first century. He seems like a nice and genuine person to me.

[Antlerman]

This is the crux of the problem for many radical and progressive Christians.

 

I thought that it was possible to stay in the mainline Protestant (non-fundy  Anglican/Methodist) church  whilst professing more rational beliefs about the Bible and Christianity. Some progressive Christians think that they can "reform" the church, but I am starting to realise that will never happen.

 

There is too much dishonesty. There are too many Church leaders who will privately agree with the more radical Christians but who will not say so in public.

 

I am starting to think that staying within the system is too much of a compromise.  I always try to be honest about my thoughts and ideas and I think that I have done some good by that. But it is becoming too much of a strain! 

 

And I really do not want to be identified with ( much less condone) the loony fundies.

 

I just haven't worked out yet what to do about it.

Sounds largely identical to what I went through. I gave up on trying mainstream, moderate Christianity for much the same reasons, then just lived outside of any system, but still never really wanted to say there wasn't a god. I just had a hard time trying to approach a god outside the context of religious teachings - no matter where they came from. They always crept into my mind.

 

Finally, I just realized it wasn't necessary to hold onto that belief and let it go. It was at that moment, I finally felt empowered and centered in myself. That schism between reason and religious belief was gone. I still from time to time wish I could have an elevated deity-like entity to focus my sense of awe and wonder of life towards, but there is way too much pollution about deities through human belief systems to get past. It’s just the artist side of me.

 

A side note here to anyone (not Indoctrinated) who thinks they have found a better system: Not a chance. They all say the same thing even though you may think yours make better sense. It’s just a different spin that may appeal to you better than others, but it’s only a spin on the same old thing. It is unlikely in the extreme there is any god that looks anything like anything you and anyone could ever image. Therefore I conclude it's pointless to pursue it. Live here, in the real world.

[EdwardAbbey]

Edward Abbey, are you saying there is anything wrong with him being able to have this personally intimate interpretation of Christianity?    Forums are made to debate... which he has done explicitly and respectfully, IMO. I guess he has nontraditional beliefs from nontraditional resources.. perhaps much like those in the first century. He seems like a nice and genuine person to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I never said he wasn't a nice person. I'm just pointing out the fallacies in the thinking that someone can somehow convince themselves they are true believers but at the same time reject just about the entire bible like he has already admitted too. I considered myself a moderate believer when I was doubting much of what Christianity and the bible taught until I reached a point where I could no longer accept it as the truth or a guide to follow. I could no longer call myself a Christian, fundamentalist or moderate. God's are all inventions of the subjective human imaginations. It wouldn't make any logical sense to consider myself a Christian or a theist.

[Antlerman]

I never said he wasn't a nice person.  I'm just pointing out the fallacies in the thinking that someone can somehow convince themselves they are true believers but at the same time reject just about the entire bible like he has already admitted too.  I considered myself a moderate believer when I was doubting much of what Christianity and the bible taught until I reached a point where I could no longer accept it as the truth or a guide to follow.  I could no longer call myself a Christian, fundamentalist or moderate.  God's are all inventions of the subjective human imaginations.  It wouldn't make any logical sense to consider myself a Christian or a theist.

For argument's sake, suppose it was irrefutably proven that the earliest Christianity was strictly a Logos Christology with no historical human founder. Could we say that no one, from 200 AD to today has the right to call themselves Christian, since they believe a modified version of the Jesus figure from what the earliest Christian did?

 

I think the best that can be said is that liberal and moderate beliefs aren't following "traditional Christianity", not that they can't call themselves Christian. Traditional Christianity has been historically dominant, but that doesn't give them exclusive rights to interpretation and the title of "True Christian". There have been many shades of Christian belief from the very first. The one we know of historically, was simply the one which was the luckiest at politics, not the protector of true interpretation.

 

I think it's easier to say they're all Christians, but not all are traditional Christians.