# A few thoughts on being an extremely liberal Xtian **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 21, 2006, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-thoughts-on-being-an-extremely-liberal-xtian/373535 "2006-09-21T07:03:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2006, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-thoughts-on-being-an-extremely-liberal-xtian/373535/81 "2006-09-22T20:18:42Z")
[QUOTE=Bippy the Beardless] It may be that the term Christian is devalued by its inclusiveness, but I would argue that **Skald** is far more a follower of Christ, than Phelps ever was. [/QUOTE] Now who’s salting other people’s porridge? By the arguments put forwards by many here, Phelps is _just as much_ a Christian as **Skald**. He just has a very …different view on the teachings of Christ from the liberal ideals portrayed here. If I was hard-pressed, I’d say Phelps was a Christian whereas Skald was a Deist with a lot of respect for Jesus’ teachings. Maybe make up a new term for people who have “an association” with Jesus as _philosopher_ rather than Jesus as _Christ_ - mmm, maybe _Jeshuans_? ---
**Author:** ![samm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/858c86/32.png) [@samm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samm)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2006, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-thoughts-on-being-an-extremely-liberal-xtian/373535/82 "2006-09-22T20:36:51Z")
[QUOTE=Bippy the Beardless] Do you follow the precepts that you assign to the Christ figure as a way to live your life? ie do you follow what you believe were Christs teachings? [/QUOTE] Sure I do! That’s what’s so easy about being Christian apparently - the “precepts that I assign to the Christ figure.” Maybe 90% of what Jesus said can be attributed to misinterpretation, metaphor, misquoted, only relatable during the time he lived, or too vague. But at least 10% of it I think is super cool and I totally live my life according to it. Just like all the other “liberal” Christians do. ---
**Author:** ![Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ac8455/32.png) [@Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bippy_the_Beardless)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2006, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-thoughts-on-being-an-extremely-liberal-xtian/373535/83 "2006-09-22T21:37:43Z")
[QUOTE=samm] Sure I do! That’s what’s so easy about being Christian apparently - the “precepts that I assign to the Christ figure.” Maybe 90% of what Jesus said can be attributed to misinterpretation, metaphor, misquoted, only relatable during the time he lived, or too vague. But at least 10% of it I think is super cool and I totally live my life according to it. Just like all the other “liberal” Christians do. [/QUOTE] Then you are a follower of Christ, a Christian so to speak. Even if you follow only the ‘bad Christ’ parts of the Bible, you could claim to be following Christ and hense a Christian. It is fine for other people to say “your not my sort of Christian”, or “your not a [Roman Catholic/Presbitarian/Jehovas Witness/Methodist/Baptist/ etc…]” since those are all terms with more restrictions on their meaning than mere Christian. ---
**Author:** ![Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ac8455/32.png) [@Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bippy_the_Beardless)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2006, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-thoughts-on-being-an-extremely-liberal-xtian/373535/84 "2006-09-22T21:47:22Z")
[QUOTE=MrDibble] Maybe make up a new term for people who have “an association” with Jesus as _philosopher_ rather than Jesus as _Christ_ - mmm, maybe _Jeshuans_? [/QUOTE] That’s a good point the word christ implies the annointed one. So it would also be necessary to believe that Christ has a special relationship with “The Architect” that is beyond what normal people posess. Though it could be no more than posessing a more complete understanding of The Architect or the world he created. Part of the problem is the word christ does not directly imply “the physical son of God” if it did, then a lot more liberal Christians might not use the word christ to discribe their faith. After all if Christ was truely Human, where did his Y chromosomes come from? Does God have a genetic code? If not how can he be the physical (rather than spiritual) Father? What would a Spiritual Father be, since Fatherhood is generally related to reproduction, he would be a Godfather figure instead 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Waenara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@Waenara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waenara)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2006, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-thoughts-on-being-an-extremely-liberal-xtian/373535/85 "2006-09-22T21:56:47Z")
[QUOTE=Bippy the Beardless] Then you are a follower of Christ, a Christian so to speak. Even if you follow only the ‘bad Christ’ parts of the Bible, you could claim to be following Christ and hense a Christian. It is fine for other people to say “your not my sort of Christian”, or “your not a [Roman Catholic/Presbitarian/Jehovas Witness/Methodist/Baptist/ etc…]” since those are all terms with more restrictions on their meaning than mere Christian. [/QUOTE] So what happens if you pick the “good parts” from _multiple_ religions, believe in those specific tenets you picked and use them to live your life, but don’t actually believe in the existence of their specific gods/prophets/incarnations/angels/whatever. Can someone simultaneously be a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan (or all of the above)? I’d say that they’re a thoughtful, possibly spiritual, person who admires philosophy, morality, etc… But I wouldn’t say that they’re actually followers of whatever religions. I think that, after a certain point that’s hard to define prescisely depending on the religion, you can follow some of the principles inspired by a religion, but you’re no longer a “follower” of that religion. Certainly, individual followers of a religion are not necessarily a homogeneous group with identical beliefs in all respects. But if you don’t draw a line _somewhere_ as to what beliefs define a religion in general terms, then those descriptors lose their meaning. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2006, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-thoughts-on-being-an-extremely-liberal-xtian/373535/86 "2006-09-22T23:41:11Z")
[QUOTE=samm] Well, cool. I thought I was atheist because I don’t believe in a god, but as it turns out I’m actually Christian because I do believe Christ was a real person who had some cool things to say. [/quote] Nah. That only applies to _Rhymers_, silly. How 'bout you call yourself whatever you want to? Of course, I should properly be addressed as “Rightful, future, and inevitable God-King of Earth,” but that’s a different issue. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2006, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-thoughts-on-being-an-extremely-liberal-xtian/373535/87 "2006-09-22T23:52:35Z")
I think if **Skald** called himself a Christian, with no qualifiers, he’d be misleading most people. They’d be assuming that he believes most of the traditional Christian beliefs (as found in the creeds and statements of faith of the various churches). If he calls himself an “extremely liberal Christian,” though, they’d assume he claimed _some_ affinity for traditional Christianity but would be warned that he diverged from these beliefs and they shouldn’t assume too much about what he does and does not assent to. [QUOTE=Skald the Rhymer] And, in fact, I’d really call myself a Christian agnostic more than anything else. [/QUOTE] From what you’ve said in this thread, it sounds like there are some traditional Christian beliefs that you are agnostic to and others you explicitly reject. Calling yourself a Christian agnostic suggests to me that you take an “I don’t know” position towards things like the divine status of Jesus, the accuracy of the Bible, miracles, the virgin birth, the resurrection, heaven, hell, etc.—not that you definitely disbelieve them. Calling yourself a Christian agnostic also brings to my mind the book _The Christian Agnostic_ by [Leslie Weatherhead](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Weatherhead) (which is long out of print—I found my copy at a used book sale). I am tempted to quote from this book at length, but I’ll limit myself to the passage where Weatherhead explains what he means by the term: > [@](#): > > I am writing for the “Christian agnostic,” by which I mean a person who is immensely attracted to Christ and who seeks to show his spirit, to meet the challenges, hardships and sorrows of life in the light of that spirit, but who, though he is sure of many Christian truths, feels that he cannot honestly and conscientiously “sign on the dotted line” that he believes certain theological ideas about which some branches of the church dogmatize; churches from which he feels excluded because he cannot “believe.” His intellectual integrity makes him say about many things, “It may be so. I do not know.” ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2006, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-thoughts-on-being-an-extremely-liberal-xtian/373535/88 "2006-09-23T01:38:45Z")
[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink] Calling yourself a Christian agnostic also brings to my mind the book _The Christian Agnostic_ by [Leslie Weatherhead](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Weatherhead) (which is long out of print—I found my copy at a used book sale). [/QUOTE] Of course it brings Weatherhead to mind; that’s who I am thinking of when I refer to myself thusly. I have it in hardcover, by the way. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2006, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-thoughts-on-being-an-extremely-liberal-xtian/373535/89 "2006-09-23T03:22:54Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > They are capitalistic in their endless search for growth and conversion. They compete for a fixed pool of humans “Fixed”? Last I looked, the pool of humans was still growing apace. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2006, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-thoughts-on-being-an-extremely-liberal-xtian/373535/90 "2006-09-23T03:28:11Z")
Just so you know, Dopers, I opened this thread so I could see if **badchad** was interested in or capable of civil discourse. Since he seems to have exited, I’m not likely to come back to it; I thought I’d mention that so as to not to seem rude if anyone asks a question of me. Ciao. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2006, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-thoughts-on-being-an-extremely-liberal-xtian/373535/91 "2006-09-23T08:18:23Z")
[QUOTE=Skald the Rhymer] I call myself a Christian, though in the view of many I am not. I disbelieve in the Virgin Birth, you see, and I am agnostic about the Resurrection but inclidned to disbelieve it. I don’t believe in miracles and have no opinionon life after death, as I have no data at present and prefer not to have such data, as it would involve dying and that tends to be painful or at least undignified. Here’s what I believe, just off the top of my head and in no particular order. \ [/QUOTE] You might be surprised to learn that your take on Christianity is more conservative than you think! I would not consider it “extremely liberal”. Not compared to a large body of Christian theology that began in Germany in the 19’th century (see, for example, [Higher Criticism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_Criticism)) and similar Christian interpretations and views which became fairly popular in Europe and America in the early and middle 20’th within Protestant churches (outside of fundamentalism, of course). Not only did these highly learned and sophisticated Christians reject the idea of the bodily resurrection of Jesus and the virgin birth and all the other myths, but many of them also rejected the divinity of Jesus/Christ and often even the existence of God! Some of them defined God as the “ultimate ground of being”, for example. If you find yourself asking “what the hell does _that_ mean?”, you’re far from alone, even among many of the most knowledgeable theologians of the era. To me, that’s indistinguishable from pantheism, and I hold that pantheism is utterly indistinguishable from atheism. You might want to learn more about the famous liberal Christian theology of such brilliant thinkers as [Rudolf Bultmann](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Bultmann), [Reinhold Niebuhr](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhold_Niebuhr), [Paul Tillich](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich), and perhaps even [Karl Barth](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Barth) (who is considered to be neo-orthodox rather than liberal). ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2006, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-thoughts-on-being-an-extremely-liberal-xtian/373535/92 "2006-09-23T08:22:20Z")
[QUOTE=FrantzJ] When I hear of people like this, it makes me wonder what “Christian” means anymore. Let’s look at what you have said that you believe: Heaven and hell don’t exist. A ton of things that Jesus said were not really said by him. Other philosophies were sent to Earth by God (not devised by humans). There was no virgin birth. I don’t feel all that antagonistic towards people like you, but it makes me wonder what causes you to consider yourself Christian at all. I generally associate Christianity as being a religion based upon belief in the overall truthfulness of the Bible. [/QUOTE] I’m sorry, but that’s not valid according to a very large number of Christians as well as some of the greatest theologians who’ve ever lived. See, for example, my short list of theologians in my post above. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2006, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-thoughts-on-being-an-extremely-liberal-xtian/373535/93 "2006-09-23T08:35:26Z")
[QUOTE=FrantzJ] I have never read any of his books, but from what I hear, Sam Harris’s views are as such: 1. All religious beliefs are irrational and detrimental to society. 2. Except mine. Is this a good summary? 😃 [/QUOTE] Sadly, contrary to **tagos** ’s opinion, that’s closer to the mark than what Harris would like to acknowledge. His rant about meditation and how “spirituality” (whatever that means) is necessary for morality in my opinion somewhat ruins his otherwise excellent book. I found his critique (well, trouncing, really) of Islam to be the most important and most valuable aspect of that work. I’d parody his book this way: 1. All religious beliefs are irrational and detrimental to society 1a. Especially Islam 2. Except my own peculiar brand of ostensibly non-transcendent mysticism. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2006, 8:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-thoughts-on-being-an-extremely-liberal-xtian/373535/94 "2006-09-23T08:45:10Z")
[QUOTE=Autumn Almanac] **Skald** , I think you’re a cool guy and all, but honestly, if you don’t believe in the virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus, you’re not a Christian by any reasonable definition of the word. [/QUOTE] Many brilliant and highly important theologians would disagree with you. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2006, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-thoughts-on-being-an-extremely-liberal-xtian/373535/95 "2006-09-23T09:03:28Z")
[QUOTE=WhyNot] Physically and logistically, I suppose. It’s just a phrase that bugs me - like saying that modern day hunters and gatherers are more “primitive” than city dwellers. [/QUOTE] Ah, you must be using the word “primitive” in a sense I’m not familiar with. Here are the standard definitions: > [@](#): > > 1. being the first or earliest of the kind or in existence, esp. in an early age of the world: primitive forms of life. > > 2. early in the history of the world or of humankind. > > 3. characteristic of early ages or of an early state of human development: primitive toolmaking. > > 4. Anthropology. of or pertaining to a preliterate or tribal people having cultural or physical similarities with their early ancestors: no longer in technical use. > > 5. unaffected or little affected by civilizing influences; uncivilized; savage: primitive passions. > > 6. being in its earliest period; early: the primitive phase of the history of a town. > > 7. old-fashioned: primitive ideas and habits. > > 8. simple; unsophisticated: a primitive farm implement. > > 9. crude; unrefined: primitive living conditions. > > 10. Linguistics. a. of or pertaining to a form from which a word or other linguistic form is derived; not derivative; original or radical. > b. of or pertaining to a protolanguage. > c. of or pertaining to a linguistic prime. > > 11. primary, as distinguished from secondary. > > 12. Biology. a. rudimentary; primordial. > b. noting species, varieties, etc., only slightly evolved from early antecedent types. > c. of early formation and temporary, as a part that subsequently disappears. Clearly, modern day hunters and gatherers _are_ more “primitive” than city dwellers. That’s a perfectly appropriate term. [QUOTE=WhyNot] Every thing on this planet this week has, to the best of current scientific knowledge, been around as long as everything else - through different chains of mutation and evolution. That is, “life” only happened once, so a crocodile is just as well evolved and suited to it’s environment as a fruit fly as a buttercup as a grape plant as a human. They’re all equal, for lack of a better metaphor, in the eyes of God. [/QUOTE] I can’t agree. There has never been any other animal except man who can not only adapt to his environment, he can radically alter it to suit himself, thereby drastically reducing evolutionary pressures to almost nothing. [QUOTE=WhyNot] People, if we are unique in any way at all, which I’m not convinced we are, might possibly be unique in having a sense of different possible futures. [/QUOTE] Man is unique in many ways, perhaps the most important of which is that we alone possess the ability to store information outside of our DNA. And that changes _everything_. We are not only unique, we are _profoundly_ unique. (not that this gives any credibility to religious or supernatural or mystical ideas, of course). ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2006, 9:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-thoughts-on-being-an-extremely-liberal-xtian/373535/96 "2006-09-23T09:14:01Z")
[QUOTE=MrDibble] My Bolding What I’m seeing from **Skald** ’s posts is a very wishy-washy version of _revere_ that I’d say was more akin to “admiration” or “respect” than awe and worship. Hey, I evidently feel the same way about Nietzsche, Russell and Proudhon, but I don’t go around calling myself a _Russellist_ or _Proudhonian_\*… \*Of course, thanks to that fucker Roddenberry, [Nietzschean](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nietzschean) is right out. 😉 [/QUOTE] Heh, I merely _mentioned_ Nietzsche’s name in a pit thread and I was furiously, ridiculously attacked by those folks, who accused me of being a 15 year old boy who also admired Ayn Rand! Sheesh! ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2006, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-thoughts-on-being-an-extremely-liberal-xtian/373535/97 "2006-09-23T12:02:00Z")
Isn’t the word Christ a title given to Jesus? If this is so, then his followers would be called Jeasusians. Christ seems to me to mean the Chosen one,or the title. To be a Christian then would mean you would have to believe Jesus was the Messiah the Jews were, and still are, waiting for. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2006, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-thoughts-on-being-an-extremely-liberal-xtian/373535/98 "2006-09-23T14:12:03Z")
[QUOTE=MrDibble] I was with you, and nodding my head, until this point - “an association” doesn’t do it for me as a valid definition for Christianity _as a religion_. Like I said, I have “an association” with the sayings of Bertrand Russell. That doesn’t make it a religion. When you say “I am a Christian” in a _religious discussion_, you’re saying “My religion is Christianity”. That’s got to mean _more_ than “I have an association with Jesus” for the word “religion” to have any meaning. [/QUOTE] I agree, however, I think the difference is whether the person sees that association as serious enough, or important enough to them to claim the title for themselves. You or I may not agree with them. When someone refers to Swaggart or Falwell as Christians I can’t help but think. No they’re not. _Especially_ in a religious discussion. My own reverence for the teachings of Christ bristles when hateful people claim the title. I understand what you mean about context and I agree. In a religious discussion the term “I’m a Christian” needs _some_ qualifiers if your beliefs are far outside the norm. “In my own way” is probably enough. If the person cares enough to ask for details they can. I believe in this case the qualifiers were laid out in the OP. Now someone could say “I’m Catholic” and we know that may mean they actually practice or they may just have catholic parents. The same may be said for Christians. I’m a christian may easily mean “I have a christian background, my parents were christian, and I don’t go to church anymore” What about their beliefs? They probably haven’t even thought about it for years. > [@](#): > > Again, I agreed with everything you said, but you must acknowledge that of all the definitions, there’s a large set that has elements in common? > An example: > Do you think it’s _accurate_ if a person who _only_ likes dressing up as Jesus and giving bread-and-wine dinners, but in no other way follows Jesus’ teachings, chooses to call himself a Christian? I’m not questioning his right to, BTW, just the accuracy of the self-definition. I think this person would definitely fall under the “In my own {insane} way” Seriously, look at how Falwell and other hateful people are readily recognized as Christians. Whats the difference? IS follower or Christ enough or does it have to be worship? I understand the difference between principles and philosophies rather than religious worship. The term “I’m a Christian” spoken by an individual has more variables than the christian religion , although that varies quite a bit as well. The word religion to me denotes some kind of organized worship rather than just personal convictions. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2006, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-thoughts-on-being-an-extremely-liberal-xtian/373535/99 "2006-09-23T14:28:14Z")
[QUOTE=MrDibble] Now who’s salting other people’s porridge? By the arguments put forwards by many here, Phelps is _just as much_ a Christian as **Skald**. He just has a very …different view on the teachings of Christ from the liberal ideals portrayed here. If I was hard-pressed, I’d say Phelps was a Christian whereas Skald was a Deist with a lot of respect for Jesus’ teachings. Maybe make up a new term for people who have “an association” with Jesus as _philosopher_ rather than Jesus as _Christ_ - mmm, maybe _Jeshuans_? [/QUOTE] OOOOo Phelps is another guy I can’t really refer to as Christian no matter what he says, but I get your drift. Maybe if someone asks me I should qualify them. “Are you a Christian?” “Well that depends. So you think Jimmy Swaggart is a Christian?” “Why yes I do.” "In that case I’m not’ 🙂 I’m in favor of a new term. The reason I no longer call myself one is because I think the most common understanding of the word doesn’t apply to me. I also don’t have a problem with the word having such a wide meaning that one must ask for details to get to the individuals definition. It’s pretty much that way already. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2006, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-thoughts-on-being-an-extremely-liberal-xtian/373535/100 "2006-09-23T14:50:38Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] I’m in favor of a new term. [/QUOTE] How’s “cherry-picker”? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-thoughts-on-being-an-extremely-liberal-xtian/373535.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-thoughts-on-being-an-extremely-liberal-xtian/373535.md?page=6)