Question For Liberal Christians

[HoustonHorn]

I don't understand the concept of a Christian who doesn't take the Bible literally, what I would consider a liberal Christian. I was thinking that going away from Christianity in steps - hardcore to liberal to agnostic to atheist - would be easier than just dropping the whole thing at once. But I can't (or should say couldn't) stop at liberal Christian. The idea of believing parts of the Bible and being able to discount others is odd. How does one decide which parts are valid and which aren't? It seems that the resurrection would be one of the most likely candidates for exclusion if you're able to do so.

[Open_Minded]

I don't understand the concept of a Christian who doesn't take the Bible literally, what I would consider a liberal Christian. I was thinking that going away from Christianity in steps - hardcore to liberal to agnostic to atheist - would be easier than just dropping the whole thing at once. But I can't (or should say couldn't) stop at liberal Christian. The idea of believing parts of the Bible and being able to discount others is odd. How does one decide which parts are valid and which aren't? It seems that the resurrection would be one of the most likely candidates for exclusion if you're able to do so.

Hello HustonHorm:

 

You ask some good questions and I do look forward to participating in this discussion, with you.

 

Though it might help you to know that we've had a few other discussions in the past around these issues. You may want to take a look at the following threads:

 

Reading The Bible Literally Is Not A Requirement Of Christianity?, Just curious...

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&s...ndpost&p=147960

 

Questions For Our Universalist And/or Liberal Christians, Just trying to understand

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&s...ndpost&p=139992

 

More Specific Questions For Liberal/universalists Christians

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&s...ndpost&p=141966

 

Reading through these threads may answer a lot of your questions. After you've had the opportunity to do this, do ask more questions (if you feel the need). It is not my intent to put you off, merely to provide you with information and then answer questions after you've had a chance to review the information.

[Thurisaz]

The idea of believing parts of the Bible and being able to discount others is odd. How does one decide which parts are valid and which aren't?

 

Don't know if you're interested in this, but back in my (German Lutheran, read: lukewarm liberal ) christian days I'd probably have replied something similar to:

 

"When two biblical statements contradict each other, first try to go with the one coming from Jesus personally. If you find something - even in the sayings of Jesus himself - that contradicts God being a deity of love, assume that since the bible was copied and edited by humans errors may creep in and disregard that non-love part. Yes this means that you can't be 100 % sure that you got it right... but then, you do have a brain to think, and I trust you'll use it in a responsible way."

 

I was fully aware of the fact that as a "literal manual" the bible fails miserably. Whenever I was facing one of those nasty problems I therefore asked myself "with what option can your conscience live more easily?" and decided to take the route that was more kind towards humanity as a whole.

 

It seems that the resurrection would be one of the most likely candidates for exclusion if you're able to do so.

 

Indeed. Even as a christian I never thought that the resurrection story could possibly have been a real event... but then, I thought that (for that bygone time) the teachings of Jesus were good stuff, even if they merely came from a wandering radical human preacher instead of from the son of any deity.

[dibby]

. The idea of believing parts of the Bible and being able to discount others is odd. How does one decide which parts are valid and which aren't? It seems that the resurrection would be one of the most likely candidates for exclusion if you're able to do so.

 

It may seem odd, but its not really. We use our discernment in most other walks of life : politics, science, shopping etc. The Bible is just another collection of books. Why do we need to have an "all or nothing", or to be precise a "literally all true , or untrue", approach? It seems odd because the fundamentalists have set the agenda of what they think a "true christian" is. And most of our culture has blindly accepted it. For instance, we only seem only to be able to look at something like the ressurection literally, that either did , or did not happen.

 

What if the Gospel was an allegorical myth encoding a deeper understanding of life? I believe that the ressurection is a symbol of spiritual awakening.

 

I think to read the stories literally is banal, and one misses the whole point completely.

 

The environment that the gospels emerged from was soaked in Greek culture and religious outlook. It was myth and story telling, encoding deeper spiritual truth, that inspired the hellenized jews to write their mythic story of Joshua the Messiah.

[Checkmate]

I don't understand the "Liberal" Christian mindset either. And brother have I tried! (Hi, Open_Minded! )

 

It seems a pointless and fruitless prospect to me. For the Liberal Xian, "God is love", and "there is no hell/damnation" for anyone. Ergo: Why bother believing or worshiping? If there is no scary god waiting to roast me alive/undead(?), and if it doesn't matter what I believe about god, because "he" is just THAT good, then...what is the point of Liberal Christianity? Why not just be a secular humanist and call it a day?

 

(This, BTW, is the FUNDAMENTAL fear of Fundies! With no Fear of God/hell, no Shame and no Guilt over sins, then what could possibly motivate people to attend and obey the preacher? Answer: Nothing.)

 

Here is a link you might enjoy on this very subject, God Is Love, So Why Believe in Him At All?

 

Don't get me wrong, though. I wish the Liberal Xians ALL the luck in the world. Because once Liberal Christianity wins the day, (when Fundies are no more) then Christianity will no longer be an oppressive threat. It'll become the benign, obscure curiosity cult that it always was intended to be before Emperor Constantine made it a popular and powerful religion.

[Open_Minded]

. The idea of believing parts of the Bible and being able to discount others is odd. How does one decide which parts are valid and which aren't? It seems that the resurrection would be one of the most likely candidates for exclusion if you're able to do so.

 

It may seem odd, but its not really. We use our discernment in most other walks of life : politics, science, shopping etc. The Bible is just another collection of books. Why do we need to have an "all or nothing", or to be precise a "literally all true , or untrue", approach? It seems odd because the fundamentalists have set the agenda of what they think a "true christian" is. And most of our culture has blindly accepted it. For instance, we only seem only to be able to look at something like the ressurection literally, that either did , or did not happen.

 

Dibby - much of what you write rings true with me. For me, the Bible is more than "just another collection of books". But, I do not expect others to view the Bible as I do.

 

"Why do we need to have an 'all or nothing', or to be precise a 'literally all true, or untrue', approach?" Is right on target.

 

It is a question worth asking and answering as a culture. One of my largest frustrations - even when I did not consider myself Christian, is precisely what you ask. There are other options, there are other forms of truth.

 

"Love" is a truth. It may not be a factual, scientifically measurable truth, but it is a truth in its own way. We recognize love when we see it - we don't need anyone to point it out to us - it is self-evident. There are many self-evident truths.

 

Using the Bible to "prove" or "disprove" anything is an utter waste of time and energy and spirit (for that matter). It misses the whole point.

 

How does having debates over things like:

1. Did Christ really live and walk the earth?
   
2. Prove Christ is the "son of God" (whatever that is)?
   
3. What does it mean to say "Son of God", "Word incarnate"?
   
4. Is the resurrection factually true?
   
5. What is God like?
   
6. Prove there is a God.
   

Get anyone any closer to Love, .... to.....

Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

 

Debates over such mundane matters - treated as necessary to belief in a God which IS LOVE and WISDOM - demean the very search. They take us further away from that which we seek.

 

Fundamentalists treat spirituality as if it is a science and thereby demean both.

 

I don't understand the "Liberal" Christian mindset either. And brother have I tried! (Hi, Open_Minded!)

 

Hello Mr. Grinch:

 

If one has come out of such a rigid fundamentalist background - as many of you have - I don't doubt it is difficult to understand someone like myself, who has come out of an entirely different background. But, does the difficulty in understanding a liberal Christian approach to spiritual seeking make the approach invalid?

 

It seems a pointless and fruitless prospect to me. For the Liberal Xian, "God is love", and "there is no hell/damnation" for anyone. Ergo: Why bother believing or worshiping? If there is no scary god waiting to roast me alive/undead(?), and if it doesn't matter what I believe about god, because "he" is just THAT good, then...what is the point of Liberal Christianity? Why not just be a secular humanist and call it a day?

 

Why bother believing? It is not a bother to believe in Infinite, eternal LOVE/WISDOM ... etc... The belief comes quite naturally. For as long as I can remember I have sensed something more that I would call God. To me there is nothing "forced" about this awareness, it is just there, just a part of how I perceive reality. Even during my teen years as my father was openly questioning everything he had been taught (and challenging all of his children to question and search) I never lost the sense that we are all part of something more than ourselves.

 

What is the point of liberal Christianity is like asking what is the point of secular humanist? Or what is the point of any label we choose for ourselves. We choose the label - it says something about us. There was a time when I would have chosen the label Diest ... the label "fit" me when I chose to use it. It does not "fit" me anymore. The Christian label "fits" better, I'm more comfortable in it.

 

Everyone please do not mistake these answers as being "short" with you. They are sincere answers - I struggle with the wording. Because some things are beyond language, beyond words. Your wondering is valid and I am willing to explain - what I am able to explain - of my position. Just be patient as I try and sort things out.

 

And remember spring is here ... and my flower gardens hold my interest longer than the computer.... as entertaining and wonderful as you all are. I'm sure you are all having the same reaction to the return of the sun and longer days.

[dibby]

I would like my so called "liberal" christian friends to start just calling themselves Christians.......don,t let the fundamentalists set the agenda. I get the feeling that the word "liberal" in this sense, has come to mean something wishy washy, or luke warm, not quite knowing what to believe. Nothing could be further from the truth. There were many christians in the first and second centuries who had a totally different way of looking at the Jesus story, and fully realised that it was about the inward journey of awakening. We call them gnostics now. They called themselves Christians. It was the literalists who hijacked christianity and persecuted the others out of existence.........is there anything redeemable in christianity today? That is up to the christians themselves....it must adapt or die.

[Abiyoyo]

I don't understand the concept of a Christian who doesn't take the Bible literally, what I would consider a liberal Christian. I was thinking that going away from Christianity in steps - hardcore to liberal to agnostic to atheist - would be easier than just dropping the whole thing at once. But I can't (or should say couldn't) stop at liberal Christian. The idea of believing parts of the Bible and being able to discount others is odd. How does one decide which parts are valid and which aren't? It seems that the resurrection would be one of the most likely candidates for exclusion if you're able to do so.

 

 

The Bible is just a book of writting that were accummulated by many different people in many different times. If you want to get down to the knitty gritty about it, the only Book in the Bible that has been translated correctly in the upper 90 percentile is the Book of Issiah.

 

This Book is the only one that has the fewest deviations from the original manuscript ( ref. KJV, NKJV). If you go to church brother, it doesnt matter what is literal or not, because as soon as anything happens in your life and God gives you scripture to help, they most likely would look at you crazy anyhow; of course, if it goes againist the "church" doctrine.

 

I personally believe the whole Bible is what it is, but I dont believe that "Christians" should say that someone is going againist a section of say Pauls writtings to the corinthians, then say that women are allowed to speak in church. Does that make sense to you?

 

If not, Paul taked about many diffenrent things that many churches take into doctrine, yet they depict what they think is applicable. For ex., alot of churches will tell you that the Bible says that you should treat your wife as the church treated the church, and thats it. Yet, in that same sentence later in that same chapter Paul talks about how the wife should reverand and obey there husband.

 

Get my point. Paul wrote to different churches to help, encourage, fix problems, etc to the churches set up in Asia. Some might have been very extreme in discipline, and some might have went the entirely opposite way, as when he wrote to his fellow jewsish peers. That is where I believe most churches have made themselves just like the church when Jesus came.

 

Good luck, hope you find closure whether it be with God or without. Just enjoy life and breath a little.

[Open_Minded]

I would like my so called "liberal" christian friends to start just calling themselves Christians.......don,t let the fundamentalists set the agenda. I get the feeling that the word "liberal" in this sense, has come to mean something wishy washy, or luke warm, not quite knowing what to believe. Nothing could be further from the truth. There were many christians in the first and second centuries who had a totally different way of looking at the Jesus story, and fully realised that it was about the inward journey of awakening. We call them gnostics now. They called themselves Christians. It was the literalists who hijacked christianity and persecuted the others out of existence.........is there anything redeemable in christianity today? That is up to the christians themselves....it must adapt or die.

 

You know, Dibby, I agree 100%. The odd thing was until Bush came into power I did simply call myself a Christian. Before Bush came into power - the phrase - "reading the Bible literally is NOT a requirement of Christianity" would not have had so much depth to it. For me it would have been a no brainer and I'd have assumed it would have been a no brainer for most of the population. Calling myself "liberal" Christian would have been secondary to calling myself simply Christian. And now ... well ... our world is in a different place than it was a short 10 years ago.

 

Even now, most of the time, I call myself just Christian. But, you are right, the fundamentalists are setting the agenda - and it will not stop until all of us (each from our own perspective) present other options. We have to present other options with the way we live and the way we speak. By openly being WHO we are - WHO we claim to be.

 

This is one reason I've stayed on this board long after my original reason for participating. You all are doing the work of being WHO you are, without apology. And I find myself in the same situation - just from a Christian perspective.

 

Sometimes I feel quite frustrated with the situation - but the only real road to peaceful coexistence is for people to stand up and BE THEMSELVES - even in the midst of great pressure to pretend. And to non-violently expect a world of peaceful coexistence. And this takes a great amount of work - for most of the time it seems that the majority of the human population would prefer extremism rather than acceptance.

[theunraveler]

I don't understand the concept of a Christian who doesn't take the Bible literally, what I would consider a liberal Christian. I was thinking that going away from Christianity in steps - hardcore to liberal to agnostic to atheist - would be easier than just dropping the whole thing at once. But I can't (or should say couldn't) stop at liberal Christian. The idea of believing parts of the Bible and being able to discount others is odd. How does one decide which parts are valid and which aren't? It seems that the resurrection would be one of the most likely candidates for exclusion if you're able to do so.

by ur definitions i will most probably be a liberal christian. how do i accept parts of the bible while discounting the rest? simple, i learn it from church from those christians who liberally quote the OT when they feel like it lends weigh to their arguement and discounting it and saying "christ died for us and we are no longer part of the old covenant" when they feel like it

[Ziggy]

I don't understand the concept of a Christian who doesn't take the Bible literally, what I would consider a liberal Christian. I was thinking that going away from Christianity in steps - hardcore to liberal to agnostic to atheist - would be easier than just dropping the whole thing at once. But I can't (or should say couldn't) stop at liberal Christian. The idea of believing parts of the Bible and being able to discount others is odd. How does one decide which parts are valid and which aren't? It seems that the resurrection would be one of the most likely candidates for exclusion if you're able to do so.

Hi HoustonHorn

There is little in life which is either black or white and this applies even more so to faith.

Even if all Christians did take the bible as literally as possible there would be arguments over what certain things mean and don't mean.

Its easier to think along the lines of ' its either all true or nothing is' but that thought process does not properly consider the issues. Its the easy way out for either side of the argument - ie Literal Christians and fundamental Atheists

 

Having said that I think Liberal Christianity is far less focused than the traditional evangelical view is because they do not preach/believe Hell and salvation. The challenge for Liberal Christianity is to find a clear positive focus in its message - ie what is the point of any faith if there is no hell to be afraid of? This has been discussed on these boards and I feel there IS something in it .. but as yet a bit vague. But maybe thats becasue i am used to the concrete message of Heaven and Hell and salvation etc - possible like you are

 

So for now I stay Gnostic / Liberal while I search

[dibby]

You know, Dibby, I agree 100%. The odd thing was until Bush came into power I did simply call myself a Christian. Before Bush came into power - the phrase - "reading the Bible literally is NOT a requirement of Christianity" would not have had so much depth to it. For me it would have been a no brainer and I'd have assumed it would have been a no brainer for most of the population. Calling myself "liberal" Christian would have been secondary to calling myself simply Christian. And now ... well ... our world is in a different place than it was a short 10 years ago.

 

Even now, most of the time, I call myself just Christian. But, you are right, the fundamentalists are setting the agenda - and it will not stop until all of us (each from our own perspective) present other options. We have to present other options with the way we live and the way we speak. By openly being WHO we are - WHO we claim to be.

 

This is one reason I've stayed on this board long after my original reason for participating. You all are doing the work of being WHO you are, without apology. And I find myself in the same situation - just from a Christian perspective.

 

Sometimes I feel quite frustrated with the situation - but the only real road to peaceful coexistence is for people to stand up and BE THEMSELVES - even in the midst of great pressure to pretend. And to non-violently expect a world of peaceful coexistence. And this takes a great amount of work - for most of the time it seems that the majority of the human population would prefer extremism rather than acceptance.

 

Bless ya OM!! I would say stick with it.........call yourself "christian". Sometimes we can feel that we play such a tiny part in the scheme of things, but you know what? I bet you have helped and touched more peoples lives than you can imagine. There was a time when I couldn,t even look at a bible after I had just come away from fundamentalism, that was nearly twenty years ago. But the more I explore the Jesus story and the deeper I look into it, the more beauty I find. It truly is a profound story of awakening.....a cursory, literal look just doesn,t even get near what it is about.

I can read the whole thing with fresh eyes, and the Nag Hammadi scriptures too. The Gospel of Truth is my favourite.

 

So please....don,t get disheartened.....be as tenacious as those fundies are!

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

Black or White, literal or figuratively, one or the other? Why? Some parts are literal some are metaphor and parable, why does it have to be only one way? All Scripture should be personal interpretation because any diety or philosophy of life is personal interpretation. Arguing the 'fine' points of the Bible will take the rest of your life without going anywhere and it is time you could be spending getting laid or something. The Bible doesn't force you to read it. Argue freedom from religion or countless other things that are a more worthy cause . The Bible is a dead end.

 

Lately I have come to the conclusion that Atheists are just as bad as fundies in some areas. I'm going to have to change from Atheist to Just Don't Give a Shit if there is a god or not because people on both sides of the equation usually make me nauseated.

[Open_Minded]

Bless ya OM!! I would say stick with it.........call yourself "christian". Sometimes we can feel that we play such a tiny part in the scheme of things, but you know what? I bet you have helped and touched more peoples lives than you can imagine. There was a time when I couldn,t even look at a bible after I had just come away from fundamentalism, that was nearly twenty years ago. But the more I explore the Jesus story and the deeper I look into it, the more beauty I find. It truly is a profound story of awakening.....a cursory, literal look just doesn,t even get near what it is about.

 

I can read the whole thing with fresh eyes, and the Nag Hammadi scriptures too. The Gospel of Truth is my favourite.

 

So please....don,t get disheartened.....be as tenacious as those fundies are!

 

Thank you Dibby, I sincerely mean that. Sometimes I wonder, where we all end up - we humans. It is important to take a long view of human history and remain optimistic. But, these past several years under Bush, have really caused much damage. And not just in America, but throughout the world. Your words give me much encouragement that there are people all over this world trying to build bridges instead of walls.

 

Black or White, literal or figuratively, one or the other? Why? Some parts are literal some are metaphor and parable, why does it have to be only one way? All Scripture should be personal interpretation because any diety or philosophy of life is personal interpretation. Arguing the 'fine' points of the Bible will take the rest of your life without going anywhere and it is time you could be spending getting laid or something. The Bible doesn't force you to read it. Argue freedom from religion or countless other things that are a more worthy cause . The Bible is a dead end.

 

Lately I have come to the conclusion that Atheists are just as bad as fundies in some areas. I'm going to have to change from Atheist to Just Don't Give a Shit if there is a god or not because people on both sides of the equation usually make me nauseated.

 

JGJ... the longer I live the more I tend to agree with you. If I had my way about it all - I'd not have any label for myself. Because, bottom-line, it shouldn't matter. But, a very deep part of me feels real concern for where the literalists of all dimensions are taking our world - and I refuse to remain silent.

 

Sometimes I can be a real Bitch.

[Alexandrian]

The idea that a literal interpretation of the bible is required is a quite new idea in Christianity, and biblical inerrancy is not a traditional Christian belief. Even if you look in the Bible, you will find NOWHERE in the Bible that the Bible is to be taken literally.