Progressive Christianity?

[labratsolo]

A little while back, I came across a friend's magazine, it was called "Relevant," it was supposedly a magazine for "progressive" Christians. I was already well into my deconversion, and upon reading it, I started cracking up. I probably got a little obnoxious about it, because I offended my friend by laughing at it. Basically, it's a magazine for Christians who aren't really living a "Christian" lifestyle, and its articles are mostly made up of advice for reconciling one's worldly lifestyle with a Christian worldview.

 

Upon more reflection, I am of two minds about this: first, I think it's good that there is some kind of acknowledgment of people who are confused about their lifestyle not matching their beliefs. As a person who has been in that boat, maybe I could have used that kind of magazine a couple of years ago.

 

My second opinion is that it's kind of a magazine for people who aren't really willing to think things through to the inevitable conclusion.

 

This got me thinking about the idea of Progressive Christianity, which, if it had a name back when I was still a Christian, is what I would have called myself. I realize now that it probably wasn't really either very progressive or Christian, but rather a method for myself of easing my guilt. When I came to the conclusion for myself that I either had to believe all of it or none of it, that's when I made my choice. For others, I know it's not so easy. Have any of you given thought to this idea, or if there are any Progressive Christians out there reading this, what do you think about it?

[pandora]

Could you give an example of one of these sitations that was described in the magazine? I am having a hard time imagining what you mean.

[Open_Minded]

I'm with Pandora, can we get an example please.

 

I'm liberal Christian ... but you're talking about reconciling lifestyles with beliefs and that leads me to think you're talking about same sex relationships, etc...

 

There's progressive politics, then there's wanabee "progressive" - and that's a whole other ballpark. If one belongs to a church in which the values are 100 years behind contemporary values - then "progressive" by that standard means you're only 50 years behind. Do you understand where I'm heading???

 

Looking forward to some examples - or do they have an on-line publication?

[labratsolo]

The article that caused me to be (admittedly) obnoxious was one about the role of oral sex in "pure" relationships...

 

They do have an online version:

 

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/

 

As I said, in the long run I don't really know how I feel about "progressive" or "liberal" Christianity, I know I wouldn't go that route again, it led to too much confusion... but for those of you who have taken that path, do you see conflicts?

[Open_Minded]

The article that caused me to be (admittedly) obnoxious was one about the role of oral sex in "pure" relationships...

 

They do have an online version:

 

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/

 

As I said, in the long run I don't really know how I feel about "progressive" or "liberal" Christianity, I know I wouldn't go that route again, it led to too much confusion... but for those of you who have taken that path, do you see conflicts?

 

Thanks for the link, did a quick search for "oral sex" about gagged reading the articles and thought to myself I'd have cracked up laughing if I'd been you and don't blame you at all for being "(admittedly)" obnoxious.

 

I don't need permission from my church to have sex, to date. If these people think they are progressive - then I'm off the chart.

 

BTW .. there's a few quotes in one of those articles that would get folks roaring in the Bible “ethics” thread. Either roaring with laughter, or pissed off - and I'd be with them.

[labratsolo]

Thanks for the link, did a quick search for "oral sex" about gagged reading the articles and thought to myself I'd have cracked up laughing if I'd been you and don't blame you at all for being "(admittedly)" obnoxious.

 

I don't need permission from my church to have sex, to date. If these people think they are progressive - then I'm off the chart.

 

BTW .. there's a few quotes in one of those articles that would get folks roaring in the Bible “ethics” thread. Either roaring with laughter, or pissed off - and I'd be with them.

 

You almost gagged when reading about oral sex? Funny...

 

Seriously, though, therein is my problem with the notion. To me it seems that the more permissive you become, the more you invalidate the text you have based your entire worldview upon.

 

For instance, let's say you were ok with celibate Christian homosexuality, because the OT only talks about same-sex intercourse, but gay sex and gay marriage are clearly off-limits.

Then someone else comes along and says gay marriage is ok, because the NT frees us from the law, but gay promiscuity is wrong because the NT says that fornicators will not make it into the kingdom of heaven.

Then, another person comes along and doesn't really care what anyone does, because they only believe the parts of the Bible that they choose to believe.

 

The problem is that each person would consider themselves progressive Christians. Some people would be in the "permission from church" camp, thinking they are progressive when they are actually stunting the progress of the human race. Others would actually be progressive, but in such a way that they would have picked and chose which parts of their faith to accept, thus invalidating it in the process. That's why I couldn't do it...

 

As for the magazine, it seems to me to speak to a movement of self-congratulatory Christian "enlightenment" that I want no part of...

[godlessgrrl]

I suppose how "progressive" a Xian can be depends a lot on how much of a literalist they are.

 

I mean there's hardcore, literalist fundies that think breathing is a sin, who take everything as the IN-fallible, IN-spired, IN-errant Word O'Gawd. No exceptions, other than hammering on gays harder than on people who eat shellfish or mow their lawns on Sundays. No room for any kind of "progressiveness" there.

 

Then I've met what I'd describe as Fluff Bunny Xians. Nonliteralists, who use the Buybull as they see fit, pick and choose, see Jesus as a forward-thinking hippie type... lots of room for being progressive.

 

The conclusion I've come to is that you can pull what you want from the Bible and use it in your life however you want. Some positions allow for more free thinking than others.

 

So I suppose I wouldn't automatically assume that being Xian means a person can't be "progressive". It'd just depend on how they utilize the tenets of the faith.

 

I also think that every Xian picks and chooses from the Bible, some are just more open and honest about it than others.

 

And I also haven't actually checked the posted link yet, so maybe I'm just full of it.

[SkepticOfBible]

 

Then, another person comes along and doesn't really care what anyone does, because they only believe the parts of the Bible that they choose to believe.

 

 

It isn't just the progressive who are doing that. Fundies do it too.

 

Check out the link in my signature which exposes this.

[Ziggy]

Its common now for people to leave literalist Christianity, but at the same time many of these people still feel some sort of spiritual need / belief. ie its not quite all or nothing as you said.

I think progresive Christianity is one attempt at dealing with this but it still seems pretty fundamental The sex thing was still - No sex, oral sex, masturbation or touching before you are married. idealistic is what that is But the site does say that life is a journey which indicates they admit things can change I agree with that part

 

I think Christians do make up their own minds about many things and because of this may be seen as being inconsistant or hypocritical but i don't think its necessarily wrong - life isn't as simple as a neat set of rules. You seem to want Christianity in a simple Box that you can accept or reject but my feeling is that any one persons spiritual path / search for meaning is individual and complicated. This applies to Christians as well

[Open_Minded]

Seriously, though, therein is my problem with the notion. To me it seems that the more permissive you become, the more you invalidate the text you have based your entire worldview upon.

 

Labratsolo.... I don't base my entire worldview on the Bible. The bible is my sacred literature ... but my worldview is influenced by many things. By the family and culture I was born into, by science, by industrialism, by many many things outside of the Bible.

 

I don't worship the Bible. I understand God - as symobolized by the Trinity (and NOT the literalist Trinity so many of you have been exposed to). Thus I call myself a Christian. The Bible is extremely important to me. As I said - it is the sacred literature that I call my own. But - it is NOT the end all be all to my world view.

 

For instance, let's say you were ok with celibate Christian homosexuality, because the OT only talks about same-sex intercourse, but gay sex and gay marriage are clearly off-limits.

Then someone else comes along and says gay marriage is ok, because the NT frees us from the law, but gay promiscuity is wrong because the NT says that fornicators will not make it into the kingdom of heaven.

Then, another person comes along and doesn't really care what anyone does, because they only believe the parts of the Bible that they choose to believe.

 

The problem is that each person would consider themselves progressive Christians. Some people would be in the "permission from church" camp, thinking they are progressive when they are actually stunting the progress of the human race. Others would actually be progressive, but in such a way that they would have picked and chose which parts of their faith to accept, thus invalidating it in the process. That's why I couldn't do it...

 

As for the magazine, it seems to me to speak to a movement of self-congratulatory Christian "enlightenment" that I want no part of...

 

You're right on track here... all of this goes to show that any Christian (whether liberal, conservative, literalist, "progressive") can take the Bible and make it mean whatever they want it to mean. That realitiy exists in all religions across all timelines of humanity. The difference between someone who views the Bible the way I do and a literalist - is quite simple.

 

Speaking for myself, at least I acknowledge this reality. And - at least I am aware of the dangers it can pose. Many, many, many other Christians recognize this reality as well.

 

At any rate - I'm going to bring a quote in here from another thread because it is applicable - Alice wrote it.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&s...ndpost&p=140393

 

I thought of this today ~ In defence of Cherry Pickers ...

 

Fundamentalist christians have all kinds of cherries in the pie of life they bake and feast on. They don't examine the cherries - they all go in ... the bitter ones, the stones, the diseased and wormy ones, it ruins their pie but as long as they believe hard enough that it tastes good (and the occasional mouthful truly is) they can convince themselves it is - however bad it tastes.

 

The Bible is a bowl of cherries and I am resolved to cherry pick for my pie. I'll season it with a little Taoist cinnamon and sprinkle of some buddhist sugar if I fancy it - sometimes I'll add a little celtic christianity custard. I'll put in whatever I want and leave out whatever I want, and I'll eat it with whatever I want as well.

 

Because when it comes to it ... it makes sense to cherry pick, its only a fundamentalist mindset that says - its all or nothing. its only if someone is claiming that the bible is a magical written by god book that this applies - as soon as one accepts that it is a compilation of ideas about man's search to understand spirituality - it becomes clear that the way to use it is to cherry pick and it's as helpful to know what and why we discard some parts and why we keep other parts.

 

My name is Alice ... and I am a cherry picker ....

 

My name is Open_Minded ... and I am a cherry picker.

[LosingMyReligion]

I used to be a "progressive" Christian too...after I left fundamentalism. I guess it is a gradual process ending up an Ex-Christian...

 

Anyway, it just proves that Christianity is not the end all be all route to god, as it has changed so much through the centuries.

[labratsolo]

I guess it is a gradual process ending up an Ex-Christian...

 

 

If only that were true... Everyone would be so much more free around here!

[Eponymic]

I guess it is a gradual process ending up an Ex-Christian...

 

 

If only that were true... Everyone would be so much more free around here!

 

Well, not necessarily. Some people keep themselves so closed off that they never really encounter any challenges to their religion & end up not changing at all. Some people fight it like the dickens.

 

But pretty much everyone that starts questioning it, seriously, objectively & indepth, ends up moving away from any heavy form of religion, even if they stay in, they are highly likely not to be fundamentalistic in any way.

[Open_Minded]

Seriously, though, therein is my problem with the notion. To me it seems that the more permissive you become, the more you invalidate the text you have based your entire worldview upon.

 

Labratsolo ... I've been thinking all day long about "invalidating" scripture. You know --- from my perspective, a literalist - strict interpretation of sacred texts invalidates them. When a person doesn't take into context historical implications, archealogy, literary study, and other contextual issues - isn't this in fact "invalidating" the sacred literature involved? Just my thoughts.....

[labratsolo]

 

Labratsolo ... I've been thinking all day long about "invalidating" scripture. You know --- from my perspective, a literalist - strict interpretation of sacred texts invalidates them. When a person doesn't take into context historical implications, archealogy, literary study, and other contextual issues - isn't this in fact "invalidating" the sacred literature involved? Just my thoughts.....

 

Sure this is true, but at the same time, these factors only work to shape our interpretation - they don't actually change the meaning. For example, 1 Corinthians 6:9,10 says:

 

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

 

So yes, we could discuss the role of Pauline epistles in the biblical canon, or whether or not Paul was even the author of 1 Corinthians, or the cultural climate surrounding the NT-era Corinthian church, or the meanings of the words fornicators, effeminate or abusers of themselves with mankind (wtf?), or a host of other factors going into how we interpret this passage or whether or not we even believe this passage to be true. None of these factors change the meaning of the piece, which I take to be that the kingdom of God is a pretty effing exclusive club, and these people are not on the guest list.

 

If you translate this from Greek or Aramaic or Latin, read it in King James or NIV, if you place it in today's context, in my mind it's still going to mean the same thing. And sure, you can find passages on grace that will counteract this, but wouldn't that be an invalidation in and of itself?

[Open_Minded]

Sure this is true, but at the same time, these factors only work to shape our interpretation - they don't actually change the meaning. For example, 1 Corinthians 6:9,10 says:

 

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

 

So yes, we could discuss the role of Pauline epistles in the biblical canon, or whether or not Paul was even the author of 1 Corinthians, or the cultural climate surrounding the NT-era Corinthian church, or the meanings of the words fornicators, effeminate or abusers of themselves with mankind (wtf?), or a host of other factors going into how we interpret this passage or whether or not we even believe this passage to be true. None of these factors change the meaning of the piece, which I take to be that the kingdom of God is a pretty effing exclusive club, and these people are not on the guest list.

 

If you translate this from Greek or Aramaic or Latin, read it in King James or NIV, if you place it in today's context, in my mind it's still going to mean the same thing. And sure, you can find passages on grace that will counteract this, but wouldn't that be an invalidation in and of itself?

Yes... what you are saying is true. There are certain Bible verses that have little need of contextual information to see their meaning.

 

But... part of context to me is that the Bible is - in fact - a human story. It is a story of humanity's search for the Sacred - not all of humanity's search (that is why other cultures and religions have their own sacred literature and traditions). But the Bible does reflect a human search for the Sacred.

 

And in doing so, it reflects the best and the worst of humanity. And as Alice - so eloquently put it -

 

Because when it comes to it ... it makes sense to cherry pick, its only a fundamentalist mindset that says - its all or nothing. its only if someone is claiming that the bible is a magical written by god book that this applies - as soon as one accepts that it is a compilation of ideas about man's search to understand spirituality - it becomes clear that the way to use it is to cherry pick

and it's as helpful to know what and why we discard some parts and why we keep other parts

.

 

For my own part, I wouldn't want to look at humanity's search for the Sacred and see only the good, we miss something in that view of history. We miss the violence and mistakes of those who walked before us, and these things have as much to teach us as the wisdom and compassion handed down through the ages. As Alice said, "it's as helpful to know what and why we discard some parts and why we keep other parts".

 

It is in answering these questions, both on a personal and cultural level that humanity grows. In fact humanity's biggest hope is NOT to repeat the violence and mistakes of past generations.

 

... I think that is why a literalist interpretation bothers me so much. It invalidates a lot more than the Bible itself, it invalidates the lessons that could be learned if one were willing to look at the Bible honestly.

 

With a literalist interpretation, not only do we miss the lessons of what NOT to do. We actually repeat the violence, because we use the violence of the past to justify contemporary violence.

[labratsolo]

 

Yes... what you are saying is true. There are certain Bible verses that have little need of contextual information to see their meaning.

 

But... part of context to me is that the Bible is - in fact - a human story. It is a story of humanity's search for the Sacred - not all of humanity's search (that is why other cultures and religions have their own sacred literature and traditions). But the Bible does reflect a human search for the Sacred.

 

And in doing so, it reflects the best and the worst of humanity. And as Alice - so eloquently put it -

 

Because when it comes to it ... it makes sense to cherry pick, its only a fundamentalist mindset that says - its all or nothing. its only if someone is claiming that the bible is a magical written by god book that this applies - as soon as one accepts that it is a compilation of ideas about man's search to understand spirituality - it becomes clear that the way to use it is to cherry pick

and it's as helpful to know what and why we discard some parts and why we keep other parts

.

 

For my own part, I wouldn't want to look at humanity's search for the Sacred and see only the good, we miss something in that view of history. We miss the violence and mistakes of those who walked before us, and these things have as much to teach us as the wisdom and compassion handed down through the ages. As Alice said, "it's as helpful to know what and why we discard some parts and why we keep other parts".

 

It is in answering these questions, both on a personal and cultural level that humanity grows. In fact humanity's biggest hope is NOT to repeat the violence and mistakes of past generations.

 

... I think that is why a literalist interpretation bothers me so much. It invalidates a lot more than the Bible itself, it invalidates the lessons that could be learned if one were willing to look at the Bible honestly.

 

With a literalist interpretation, not only do we miss the lessons of what NOT to do. We actually repeat the violence, because we use the violence of the past to justify contemporary violence.

 

But where, then, is the anchor to your faith? Doesn't the Bible essentially become The Iliad at that point?

[Open_Minded]

But where, then, is the anchor to your faith? Doesn't the Bible essentially become The Iliad at that point?

 

Good question labratsolo..

 

I have been struck in my time here at how the Bible is worshipped by the literalists. This was never even part of my thinking. I was raised with parents who were critical thinkers themselves. By the time I was 12,13,14, I was well acquainted with the basics of liberal Biblical scholarship.

 

During my teen years my father considered himself agnostic/athiest. My mother has consistently considered herself diest from the time I was in my midteens. For years I did not consider myself Christian.

 

So.... when the time came in my life that I found myself picking up the Christian title - again, it was not without a certain amount of pain. I had to find a "nitch" for myself - so to speak.

 

Please understand that this process took years, although the initial decision to reclaim Christianity happened in the twinkling of an eye.

 

As it happens - I had an inner experience in which I perceived all of reality in the Trinity. This experience was (and still is) very real and profound to me.

 

One of my first encounters on this board was with Mr. Grinch .. he and I got into a discussion on the Silly Putty thread and I ended up explaining my understanding of the Trinity there. An excerpt follows: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&s...ndpost&p=108991

 

In the thread different members had asked me questions. I listed their questions and responded...

 

4. Why you feel the need to call yourself a Christian instead of choosing the label of another group?

This is the most difficult question for me to answer BECAUSE it is not my intent to offend anyone, or to suggest that since I experience things the way I do – you should as well. So PLEASE remember that I recognize the subjectivity of my own experiences.

 

Here goes – the concept of trinity is very real to me, it presents itself in nature, in life in general. As I experience the trinity (not as the fundamentalists choose to literalize it) the trinity is within all of life, all of creation.

 

How to explain this. It might help you to put this all in context if you know that I practice contemplative Christianity (this is the meditative branch of Christianity). I have also explored the eastern mystic traditions. But they never fit. In a concrete way I suppose I could say I call myself a Christian because the contemplative path of Christianity just “fits” better. I was raised Christian, it is easier for me to get my head around the literature and writings.

 

But, there is more… as I’ve said the concept of the trinity is very real to me. For me – subjectively – I see the trinity metaphysically defined in the first verses of John’s gospel. I won’t quote them all here, but John 1:14 is immediately applicable, “

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us

”.

 

The three words “

Word became flesh

” are a metaphysical way of looking at the Trinity. The “WORD” represents the “Father”, the original idea, the original mind, the first thought. “Became” metaphysically speaking is the first thought in action, energy (or the Sacred Spirit) proceeding out from the first thought. And “Flesh” metaphysically speaking is the manifested result of the first thought. “Flesh” could not happen if energy had not proceeded out from the first thought, the first Word.

 

Think about when an artist creates something. First – before anything – the artist has to have the idea. Or the first thought. Second – the idea must be acted upon – the artist takes a canvas and paint and expends energy (or the sacred spirit). Third – because the artist had the thought and because the artist expended energy from the thought – there is an end product, a painting (or the manifested result of the first thought). This whole process is trinitarian in the sense that the painting would never be without the original thought and the energy which proceeded out from that thought in order to produce a painting.

 

In short – when I look at creation – I see this dynamic in play. I can not work in my garden, walk in the woods, hold an infant and not see that first, before anything else there was an idea. (Not an idea in the limited sense that we humans think of) But a first intention, a first awareness that there could be something more. And then, there was spirit (energy) proceeding out from this first intention. Because that energy was expended we have life, glorious life. We have creation. I see this dynamic at play in science, and I accept that there are those who study science and do not see it. I see this dynamic at play in math, and I accept that there are those who study math and do not see it. I see this dynamic at play in the arts, and I accept that there are those who study the arts and do not see it.

 

You asked about the "anchor" of my faith. The anchor is this awareness that we are (all of creation) energy - energy manifested in an infinite number of ways - but energy still. Energy interconnecting us all, making us all whole. To me this energy is the first - foundational - energy of creation. It is pure - infinite - LOVE and WISDOM within all, through all and beyond all. Without it, we would not BE in any sense of the word. Nothing would BE.

 

Now --- I can not prove any of this, as I've said many times before - I recognize that this awareness is subjective. But, you asked about the anchor of my faith and this is my answer.

 

The Bible - is much, much more than The Iliad to me. Although, I do not expect that others hold it in the same esteem that I do. It took me a very long time to find a place for myself in Christianity. Finding the contemplative branch of Christianity (and really studying it - learning it within) has been my answer. But, this did not happen easily. One of the things that I've had to struggle with is the literalism in our culture. But - I can honestly say it has been worth the struggle. What I have found is worth all the struggle.

[labratsolo]

That's pretty interesting... I can honestly say that is an interpretation of Christianity I have never encountered before...

 

It's fascinating that it is the idea of Trinity that ultimately appeals to you, moreso than the message of the gospel or any of the other facets of the faith that many Christians latch onto to claim their faith. It's much more philosophical, and I have a fair amount of respect for that.

 

Have you entered into discussions about this viewpoint of Christianity with other Christians? I am curious about their opinion, not necessarily of your viewpoint on the trinity (I'm sure they're pretty down with that), but rather that, moreso than Biblical theology, as the basis of your faith...

[Open_Minded]

That's pretty interesting... I can honestly say that is an interpretation of Christianity I have never encountered before...

 

It's fascinating that it is the idea of Trinity that ultimately appeals to you, moreso than the message of the gospel or any of the other facets of the faith that many Christians latch onto to claim their faith. It's much more philosophical, and I have a fair amount of respect for that.

 

Have you entered into discussions about this viewpoint of Christianity with other Christians? I am curious about their opinion, not necessarily of your viewpoint on the trinity (I'm sure they're pretty down with that), but rather that, moreso than Biblical theology, as the basis of your faith...

 

Well ... within the small group of people in my meditation group ... yes these types of things do come up. A few weeks ago, we got into a discussion about what would happen to Christianity as a religion, and what would happen to our own personal faith, if some archealogist somewhere found an ossuary with the inscription - "Jesus of Nazerth - King of the Jews" - inscribed on it (filled with bones).

 

I mean think about it, Christianity would have proof Jesus existed, but it's also proof that the resurrection did not involve the physical body of Jesus.

 

Fascinating question to ask, really. But .... it's not a question most Christians would be willing to entertain.

 

But, within our small group, I do feel comfortable having these discussions. And someday, it would be nice to have a group large enough that we can advertise that question as a discussion topic for one of our meditation meetings. It is my goal, as group leader, to get to this point, because I do think Christianity has to start asking and answering these kinds of questions.

 

 

.... In fact I'm going to go to the Lion's Den and start that topic right now - specifically asking Christians to respond. Thanks labratsolo, for giving me the inspiration.

[labratsolo]

 

.... In fact I'm going to go to the Lion's Den and start that topic right now - specifically asking Christians to respond. Thanks labratsolo, for giving me the inspiration.

 

Any time... Like any good inspiration dealer, I always give the first one for free

[Open_Minded]

 

.... In fact I'm going to go to the Lion's Den and start that topic right now - specifically asking Christians to respond. Thanks labratsolo, for giving me the inspiration.

 

Any time... Like any good inspiration dealer, I always give the first one for free

 

How much do you charge for follow-up appointments?

 

Feel free to inspire us in the resulting thread.

[labratsolo]

Progressive Xity is a big arena; no easy summary will do. But most progressive Xians have a "new and improved" understanding of God, ethics, the rest. Process and open theists are "progressive" Xians; those Xians who believe in God, but who aren't personalistic theists, also fall into this camp. Basically, these birds know that "orthodox" Xity has been blown to shit by the modern world and are thus trying to salvage what they can before the ship sinks.

 

 

ltrain

 

What do you mean when you say "blown to shit by the modern world?" Do you mean it has been corrupted by societal influences, or that the literalist movement has compromised its meaning, or that its traditions have outlived their usefulness? What exactly are they trying to salvage?

[Lycorth]

I think he means that in today's society, Xianity has been undercut and undermined by all the evidence and well-founded criticisms levelled against it, and that many modern Xian apologists have realized this. The goal of such people is now to try and "salvage" or "reinvent" the religion that they can't or won't leave behind for fear of seeing it universally rejected by humanity.

[Mythra]

What I've found is that all Christians cherry pick the bible. All of them.

 

You have to - you'd go insane if you tried to follow each and every verse to the letter.

 

For instance - Fundy churches are rabid about keeping homosexuals out. Yet, they never even ask new members if they've been divorced. Both are equally condemned in the bible.

 

Jesus says: "unless you give up all that you have, you cannot be my disciple". Who does that?

 

They all cherry-pick. Liberal (or progressive) Christians just take smaller portions than fundies.

 

I was a fundy. Full-blown. When I finally came to the point where I knew, deep in my heart, that there was something wrong - I briefly looked into a more reasonable version of Christianity.

 

I began looking into things like "Fundamentalists Anonymous". I found a watered down version of the bible that was no more palatable than the literal version.

 

When I stumbled on this website, I found people that were able to make a complete break with religion and were glad that they did. They were more centered, more self-reliant, more in touch with themselves and reality.

 

I read books. Lots of em. Learned things that I (or most christians) had no idea about.

 

I now share that sense of freedom enjoyed by others here. I no longer give any religion the time of day - and it is gracious enough to return the favor.