Does Liberal Religion Make Extreme Religion Possible?

[TrueFreedom]

There are a few issues I've been thinking about on this topic, but I don't have an opinion:

 

- Is liberal Christianity a subset of fundamentalist Christianity so that a fundamentalist would transition to liberal views before continuing on to atheism? In other words does the liberal simply believe less dogma or does the liberal think rituals and other practices are more important than believing dogma?

 

It tends to be a common path to atheism for those whose prior exposure to indoctrination was conservative. Dogma is a bad word to liberals.

 

- Is liberal Christianity harder to cure - like a mutated drug-resistant bacteria?

 

Since it's easier to adhere to with less cognitive dissonance, it's less likely to be rejected.

 

- Is liberal Christianity less harmful to the believers than fundamentalist Christianity or just less vocal?

 

It's far less harmful, imo.

[directionless]

 

There are a few issues I've been thinking about on this topic, but I don't have an opinion:

 

- Is liberal Christianity a subset of fundamentalist Christianity so that a fundamentalist would transition to liberal views before continuing on to atheism? In other words does the liberal simply believe less dogma or does the liberal think rituals and other practices are more important than believing dogma?

 

It tends to be a common path to atheism for those whose prior exposure to indoctrination was conservative. Dogma is a bad word to liberals.

 

- Is liberal Christianity harder to cure - like a mutated drug-resistant bacteria?

 

Since it's easier to adhere to with less cognitive dissonance, it's less likely to be rejected.

 

- Is liberal Christianity less harmful to the believers than fundamentalist Christianity or just less vocal?

 

It's far less harmful, imo.

 

I agree with what you say, but I wanted to add a few things.

 

Liberal Christianity is a big group - especially if we define it as the Christians that don't claim Biblical inerrancy. Catholics and Methodists would both fit that definition of liberal, but they take a very different approach. We can't really say Catholicism is a subset of fundamentalism IMO.

 

Also, liberal Christianity can be stressful for believers too. A gay Christian would be officially tolerated, but that gay Christian might feel sinful. I believe the Methodist and Catholic position is that homosexuality is wrong even though homosexuals should be fully accepted. Of course some denominations approve.

 

Here is an article comparing "supreme being" belief to mental illness like schizophrenia. He gives an example from the movie Castaway where Tom Hanks becomes so attached to the soccer ball that he breaks down crying when it is washed overboard. That shows how nasty even the most benign form of religion can be IMO.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2014/09/06/parables-of-belief/

[florduh]

I think more harm is done by "moderates" and "liberals" as they relentlessly attempt to change secular society to mirror their religious views. It's not as dramatic as a bombing incident or a God Hates Fags funeral protest, but it gets the job done. Both the fanatics and the liberals benefit from the other's existence. I have no use for either type.

[Ravenstar]

I say yes, it does. It legitimizes it, and those who are liberal turn a blind eye to those who are fanatical because they share the same label, if not ideology. By their silence they legitimize it.

 

We spend a lot of time here debating scripture and so far the consensus is that the doctrines of the bible are nasty… some just take it farther than others.

 

I've been guilty of defending the muslims I know, I struggle with the fact that their religion too, is hateful at it's core and does breed fanaticism and intolerance. I don't like Islam… it's no 'religion of peace'. (Or as Capt. John Sheridan on B5 pointed out repeatedly, "If you repeat a lie long enough it usually gets accepted as the truth sooner or later")

 

I can't say it for all religions, but the abrahamaic ones are like an infectious disease…an insidious virus, and the effects, though different for everyone, are deleterious on a social level, if not personally as well.

[Overcame Faith]

I say yes, it does. It legitimizes it, and those who are liberal turn a blind eye to those who are fanatical because they share the same label, if not ideology. By their silence they legitimize it.

I respectfully disagree, at least insofar as liberal Christianity goes. The liberal Christians I know do not turn a blind eye to the fundamentalists. Rather, they loathe their fundamentalist doctrine and their liberal doctrines, which they publish regularly, attempt to undercut fundamentalism. Through their publication of their liberal doctrine and preaching it from the pulpit, they are actively and publicly opposing Christian fundamentalism. That is why so many fundamentalists also declare the liberals not to be "true Christians". The two groups are in stark and public opposition.