Have a hard time respecting the moderately religious

[cosmosdan]

@adaher

So the Bible is just a bunch of suggestions, to be overruled by what humans think at any given point in time?

You’d have to get an actual moderate or liberal Christian to give thier views on this. I’m an agnostic. As a former Christian I think I have some insights. A moderate Christian might say the Bible is inspired by God , and written by imperfect men. Interpreted and translated by imperfect men as well. It i intended to be studied and interpreted with help from the HS. A more liberal Christian might also understand that it was men who chose what books are in the Bible and there were a lot of books left out. They might understand that there is nothing in the Bible to indicate it was ever intended to be the be all end all guide to Christianity, but it is a useful tool to study in their relationship with God and their own spiritual journey.

I agree completely with the OP, BTW. Being religious is like being pregnant. You either are or you aren’t. It’s not a buffet. If you believe in God, then you take God as he says he is, not as you would like him to be.

I find statements like this coming from atheists to be humorous and ridiculous. Pretending to be logical but really lacking the logic they seem proud of. Perhaps because of a lack of understanding about the subject matter?
If someone believes that the Bible is merely an imperfect yet invaluable guide and it is communing with the HS that leads to spiritual understanding of God , then they ARE {in their belief} taking God as he says he is.

When you decide that God is okay with things he said were a sin, it’s known as “making things up”.

The error here is talking of moderate Christians and then assigning them more rigid fundamantaslist beliefs they don’t nessecarily posess. If you’re going to critisize moderate Christians for thier belief system then you have to have some understanding of it. Just asigning beliefs you find easy to critisize doesn’t cut it.

And when you make up your own God, that’s known as idolatry. Sophisticated idolatry, as you didn’t build your God with your own hands, but you did build him with your own mind. It’s really the same thing in the end. You didn’t like the God as written in the Bible, or Koran, so you made one you liked better.

That’s your opinion but not an exercise is logical criticism. IMO, their belief is they are continung to discover and improve thier understanding of God, rather than making him up. Of course they can’t prove to you that’s what’s happening , but IMO since you can’t prove that’s not happening all you have is an opinion. Their belief system , such as it is, isn’t illogical.

And here’s why this line of thinking is not actually helpful. Sure, in modern times, religious people are a pain in the ass, trying to hold us back on being more tolerant of this or that thing. But in other times and other places, they also went against societal norms to call for more human rights, for more equality, for refraining from harmful activities that society at the time endorsed. Religious people, not atheists, were at the forefront of many of the West’s most important social movements, like the abolitionist movement, the civil rights movement, the anti-communist movement, the anti-Nazi movement, Prohibition, and even inequality issues. Society is not guaranteed to always progress the way us secular-minded folks would like. Sometimes we go badly wrong, and when that day comes you’ll be glad of religious people who see those ancient morals as better than the new ones.
[/QUOTE]

[cosmosdan]

@adaher

And here’s why this line of thinking is not actually helpful. Sure, in modern times, religious people are a pain in the ass, trying to hold us back on being more tolerant of this or that thing. But in other times and other places, they also went against societal norms to call for more human rights, for more equality, for refraining from harmful activities that society at the time endorsed. Religious people, not atheists, were at the forefront of many of the West’s most important social movements, like the abolitionist movement, the civil rights movement, the anti-communist movement, the anti-Nazi movement, Prohibition, and even inequality issues. Society is not guaranteed to always progress the way us secular-minded folks would like. Sometimes we go badly wrong, and when that day comes you’ll be glad of religious people who see those ancient morals as better than the new ones.

I’m not sure what point you’re making here. Is it that relgion used to be useful but isn’t any longer?

I agree that religious people were at the forefront of positive societal reforms as well as horrible acts. I’d say they still are considering that the world is still predominantly religious. I’m glad to think that some religions and denominations are becoming less rigid and more moderate or liberal.

[Czarcasm]

@cosmosdan

And here’s why this line of thinking is not actually helpful. Sure, in modern times, religious people are a pain in the ass, trying to hold us back on being more tolerant of this or that thing. But in other times and other places, they also went against societal norms to call for more human rights, for more equality, for refraining from harmful activities that society at the time endorsed. Religious people, not atheists, were at the forefront of many of the West’s most important social movements, like the abolitionist movement, the civil rights movement, the anti-communist movement, the anti-Nazi movement, Prohibition, and even inequality issues. Society is not guaranteed to always progress the way us secular-minded folks would like. Sometimes we go badly wrong, and when that day comes you’ll be glad of religious people who see those ancient morals as better than the new ones.

In other times and other places, when unrestricted, they restricted human rights and equality. Factions of religionists were behind slavery, were anti-civil rights, were pro-Nazi, and anti-equality. Often when society goes badly wrong religion has a hand in it, because, usually, when religion is unfettered it cannot control itself. It usually works best when it is walled in and balanced by other opposing religions and those that oppose all religion.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Czarcasm

In other times and other places, when unrestricted, they restricted human rights and equality. Factions of religionists were behind slavery, were anti-civil rights, were pro-Nazi, and anti-equality. Often when society goes badly wrong religion has a hand in it, because, usually, when religion is unfettered it cannot control itself. It usually works best when it is walled in and balanced by other opposing religions and those that oppose all religion.

To be fair, I think the common theme there is unrestricted, rampant single philosophy, not just religion.

[adaher]

@cosmosdan

I’m not sure what point you’re making here. Is it that relgion used to be useful but isn’t any longer?

I agree that religious people were at the forefront of positive societal reforms as well as horrible acts. I’d say they still are considering that the world is still predominantly religious. I’m glad to think that some religions and denominations are becoming less rigid and more moderate or liberal.

My point was that the rigidity is what makes them stand up when it’s inconvenient or even outright dangerous. If your beliefs are malleable depending on the wisdom of society at any given time, then you’ll tend to conform to societal norms rather than standing against them.

As someone who isn’t really a believer, but who has a background in religion from living in a devout Jewish family, I see religion’s primary value as being society’s conscience. When society “evolves” to say that this thing that used to be evil is now good, religious people remind us to hold on a minute and consider why these things were considered sinful. It seems like a pain in the ass when they are standing against the right of gays to be treated as human beings, but when they are protecting you from the next dictator by hiding you in their attic, you’ll be grateful such moral absolutists who aren’t swayed by a fickle society’s evolving moral values exist.

Jews tend to have a different view of religion than Christians. When we don’t like what God says, we just openly rebel. Most Jews are not practicing. We call ourselves Jews, and we have a connection to the community, but good luck finding any of us to say that it’s okay with God if we work on Sabbath or eat pork. Christians engage in the delusion of thinking that God is really just okay with those things, that the Bible shouldn’t be taken literally, that God wouldn’t be so harsh as to deny us happiness. He’s just a big cuddly bear in the sky. Jews are comfortable with the idea of a stern father figure, and even when he was in our faces day to day, we STILL rebelled. Not exactly healthy give the big guy’s temper, but at least it taught us to take him for who he was, not what we’d like him to be.

[adaher]

And one more thing, when you read a passage and don’t understand it, the Holy Spirit can give you insight into its meaning.

When you read a passage and just don’t like it, it’s not the Holy Spirit telling you it’s not true. According to a moderate Christian’s belief, there’s another guy whispering in their ear. If you’re feeling that something you’re reading in your holy scripture isn’t true, that it shouldn’t be taken literally because it disagrees with what you’d like to be true, you’re opening yourself up to self-deception. ANd guess who comes calling when you do that?

[Czarcasm]

@adaher

It seems like a pain in the ass when they are standing against the right of gays to be treated as human beings, but when they are protecting you from the next dictator by hiding you in their attic, you’ll be grateful such moral absolutists who aren’t swayed by a fickle society’s evolving moral values exist.

But when “fickle” society changes to accept equal rights for women, African-Americans, Gays etc. should we be feeling grateful for those moral absolutists that will not be swayed? Morality is, and should be, a work in progress, and moral absolutism is rarely a societal advantage in the long run.

[adaher]

No. Secular society should carefully consider why such ancient wisdom made sense at the time and determine if it’s right for a modern society, and if there is a consensus, ignore the objections of the religious. Especially if it’s been a long evolving process and not just some quick change in mood due to a crisis or fad. Women have been fighting for equal rights for centuries. Gays have been making slow progress for decades. I think we’ve hashed out these issues long enough that we can safely ignore the religious, although we should still respect their faith as long as they aren’t directly violating anyone’s rights.

But if some charismatic guy comes along and says, “This group is the cause of all our problems, let’s take away their rights and property”, religious people will be the ones putting their necks out even if it’s not their necks on the line. Most of us who do not believe in an eternal reward will limit ourselves to the maximum protest consistent with not getting put up against a wall and shot.

[cosmosdan]

@Voyager

So the holy spirit follows the poll numbers? Where was it 40 years ago? And why doesn’t the spiritual path of all people head in more or less the same direction? .

Who says the HS isn’t leading all seekers in the same direction? Just because people belong to a church or a religion they are not automatically following the HS. Even if they claim to be.

In theory , the HS works through the lens of people’s cultural and educational experience. Seeking the truth requires effort from the seeker. It’s not puppetry and superficial labels don’t matter at all. There’s the individual journey and then the societal one. Over generations attitudes shift as more people let go of what was commonly accepted as true. The HS leads people who seek and question.

[cosmosdan]

@Czarcasm

In other times and other places, when unrestricted, they restricted human rights and equality. Factions of religionists were behind slavery, were anti-civil rights, were pro-Nazi, and anti-equality. Often when society goes badly wrong religion has a hand in it, because, usually, when religion is unfettered it cannot control itself. It usually works best when it is walled in and balanced by other opposing religions and those that oppose all religion.

My error , That was some other posters words that I neglected to delete before I posted.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@adaher

But if some charismatic guy comes along and says, “This group is the cause of all our problems, let’s take away their rights and property”, religious people will be the ones putting their necks out even if it’s not their necks on the line. Most of us who do not believe in an eternal reward will limit ourselves to the maximum protest consistent with not getting put up against a wall and shot.

Couldn’t that charismatic guy be religious, though?

I don’t disagree, per se, with the all of the things you’re saying in this thread, but I’m not seeing how you’re getting from “religious people can do bad things because of a moral absolutism, and they can do good things because of a moral absolutism” to “Overall, the latter outweighs the former”. Religious people have been the ones up against the wall, and the ones firing the guns.

[adaher]

@Czarcasm

In other times and other places, when unrestricted, they restricted human rights and equality. Factions of religionists were behind slavery, were anti-civil rights, were pro-Nazi, and anti-equality. Often when society goes badly wrong religion has a hand in it, because, usually, when religion is unfettered it cannot control itself. It usually works best when it is walled in and balanced by other opposing religions and those that oppose all religion.

Yeah, the “moderate” factions. That’s the nature of moderate religion, it conforms. The fundies don’t change.

I’m not saying religion is all sweetness and light aside from being a pain in the ass on what we consider smallbore issues. Theocracies are hell. We don’t want religious authorities running things, but religious people refusing to let their conscience be dictated by the wisdom of men is a positive thing taken as a whole, IMO.

[Czarcasm]

@adaher

Yeah, the “moderate” factions. That’s the nature of moderate religion, it conforms. The fundies don’t change.

I’m not saying religion is all sweetness and light aside from being a pain in the ass on what we consider smallbore issues. Theocracies are hell. We don’t want religious authorities running things, but religious people refusing to let their conscience be dictated by the wisdom of men is a positive thing taken as a whole, IMO.

Call the good ones “absolutists” and the bad ones “fundies” if it makes you feel better-history tells us that for the most part religion not restricted by the laws of man is capable of atrocities unimaginable by man.

[Voyager]

@sisu

Sorry mate but if the only reason you go to church is so you don’t go to hell then alas you miss the whole point and probably wont end up going to heaven (not that I believe in a literal heaven and hell)

First, he is going because his mommy made him go as a kid. Once there he sees he is saved (or so the minister says) and figures he is okay. Second, we’re talking about what he believes, not what an expert theologian says.

[cosmosdan]

@adaher

There are many things in the Bible that are subject to interpretation, and so there are times when you have to think. Other times, the Bible is crystal clear, and so reinterpretation isn’t actually occurring in the sense that you are interpreting an unclear passage in a way to make it clearer to you. Instead, you would be reinterpreting it to make it more palatable.

This is not for you to say. Again you’re putting a more fundametalist view {the Bible has divine authority over our lives} onto the subject of moderate or liberal Christians and that just doesn’t make for a well reasoned argument.
The Bible might be clearer in some passages than others but if you believe it is influenced by the authors and their experience and culture then even the clear passages have no absolute authority.

Any document that is treated in this manner is worthless in any practical sense. It’s meant to comfort one spiritually but it cannot be claimed as a code to live by.

Absolutely untrue. Even if you see the Bible as just a helpful tool in your spiritual journey studying it can be very useful in a practical sense.

And of course if you can reinterpret the prohibitions on fornication, you can reinterpet the prohibitions on murder.

Of course. You could even start a holy war if you wanted to.

The difference is fundamentalist tell themselves they are following God’s will rather than their own interpretation, while moderates and liberals IMO, acknowledge that the Bible must be interpreted, there is no other realistic option, and your interpretation may change as new information and insight presents itself. I find the latter to be superior.

If it’s not meant to be taken literally then it has as much value as the works of Tolkien. Actually, less, since Lord of the Rings fanboys take interpretations of what happened at what point in the story far more seriously.

Nonsense. If one beleives the HS guides them to insight and growth then any book that has some relevent life lesson is capable of helping them refine themselves, as well as life experiences. If that individual is a Christian then the NT and the words of Jesus have great value. I’m an agnostic and I find a lot of valuble insight in the NT about the human condition. That doesn’t mean I place it above every other book. It’s just more relevant because of my background and the culture I was raised in.

We can disagree over what the forbidden fruit was. Some say it was an apple. Some say it was a fig. Others say the fruit only existed in the garden. Some even think it’s a parable for sex. What we cannot say is that the fruit was okay, because it doesn’t make sense to us that God would keep us away from something that tasted good, which is what many “moderate Christians” seem to argue. “There’s no harm in it, so we don’t need to worry about that anymore, and besides, it’s so divisive to call it sinful, it offends people.”

They could be saying , that’s what those people thought at that time based on the limits of their knowledge and culture , and now it’s my responsiblity as a disciple to seek God’s meaning for myself and to discern the difference between men’s tradition and what the HS is trying to tell me.

I think you might make an argument that moderate or liberal Chrisitians can’t asign any real or superior divine authority to the Bible and then pick and choose which verses to hold as literal and which ones we don’t. However, if they see the Bible as merely an importent spirtual guide for their individual relationship with God and the HS, then your position fails.

[cosmosdan]

@Czarcasm

But when “fickle” society changes to accept equal rights for women, African-Americans, Gays etc. should we be feeling grateful for those moral absolutists that will not be swayed? Morality is, and should be, a work in progress, and moral absolutism is rarely a societal advantage in the long run.

Sometimes fickle society changes because religious people helped change it. Religion is just a label for some organization but it doesn’t morally define the person or group, just as a charity can be a front for theft.

[Voyager]

@cosmosdan

Certainly a person can morally evolve without believing in God or the HS. That doesn’t prove it’s not there. I was just explaining what may be the thought process of liberal or moderate Christians and showing why it isn’t as messed up as the OP seems to think.

The Universe is what it is, and whatever exists is. It’s certainly possible and even likely that there may yet be things beyond our understanding and comprehension. Ultimately , what we now refer to as supernatural is actually natural if it exists at all.

You may believe that personal moral growth is acheived through introspection, a study of philosophy and meditation and that works for you. That’s great if it accomplishes something positive for you. A moderate or liberal Christian may believe those same tools helps him or her commune with the HS and that accomplishes something positive for them. What’s the problem?
Neither of you knows for sure if the other is right or wrong. You’ve each simply chosen a path that works for you.

I’m not at all disputing that people say and think that they are influenced by supernatural things. The HS telling one to be tolerant is the good version of voices telling someone to go out and hurt people. Perhaps this is a coping mechanism for people to morally evolve without facing up to being wrong. They couldn’t know what they were doing was hurtful until the HS told them.
Nonetheless we’re still left with the curious fact that the HS seldom talks to a lot of people until the culture is ready. And how do you know for sure that the supernatural advice to discriminate or invade Iraq is the correct advice? Unfortunately many who would seem the most amenable to receiving the HS - the super-devout - don’t get the message. Until a relative comes out, that is.

[Voyager]

@cosmosdan

Who says the HS isn’t leading all seekers in the same direction? Just because people belong to a church or a religion they are not automatically following the HS. Even if they claim to be.

In theory , the HS works through the lens of people’s cultural and educational experience. Seeking the truth requires effort from the seeker. It’s not puppetry and superficial labels don’t matter at all. There’s the individual journey and then the societal one. Over generations attitudes shift as more people let go of what was commonly accepted as true. The HS leads people who seek and question.

Those against seem to quote the Bible and not claim that some HS is telling them to be against SSM.
If there were one HS, why wouldn’t it lead all in the same direction? Are there left wing spirits and right wing spirits?

[cosmosdan]

@Czarcasm

In other times and other places, when unrestricted, they restricted human rights and equality. Factions of religionists were behind slavery, were anti-civil rights, were pro-Nazi, and anti-equality. Often when society goes badly wrong religion has a hand in it, because, usually, when religion is unfettered it cannot control itself. It usually works best when it is walled in and balanced by other opposing religions and those that oppose all religion.

Can’t say I disagree with any of that. I’m convinced now that diversity and the confrontation that springs from it are an importent part of the grwoth process for individuals and society.

I repeat, the labels of religion don’t matter. It is the actions, motives and heart of the people involved that truly identify it’s character. Humanity is flawed, sometimes terribly so. and terrible shit happens. Nobody would consider suggesting we do away with government because governments have been behind so many terrible things, and yet people feel free to think getting rid of religion is a solution to something. Not IMO.

[Voyager]

@adaher

As someone who isn’t really a believer, but who has a background in religion from living in a devout Jewish family, I see religion’s primary value as being society’s conscience. When society “evolves” to say that this thing that used to be evil is now good, religious people remind us to hold on a minute and consider why these things were considered sinful. It seems like a pain in the ass when they are standing against the right of gays to be treated as human beings, but when they are protecting you from the next dictator by hiding you in their attic, you’ll be grateful such moral absolutists who aren’t swayed by a fickle society’s evolving moral values exist.

Jews tend to have a different view of religion than Christians. When we don’t like what God says, we just openly rebel. Most Jews are not practicing. We call ourselves Jews, and we have a connection to the community, but good luck finding any of us to say that it’s okay with God if we work on Sabbath or eat pork. Christians engage in the delusion of thinking that God is really just okay with those things, that the Bible shouldn’t be taken literally, that God wouldn’t be so harsh as to deny us happiness. He’s just a big cuddly bear in the sky. Jews are comfortable with the idea of a stern father figure, and even when he was in our faces day to day, we STILL rebelled. Not exactly healthy give the big guy’s temper, but at least it taught us to take him for who he was, not what we’d like him to be.

Yeah, our actions are enforced more by societal norms than the fear of hell. If I had grown up in an Orthodox family I’d probably feel a lot more guilty about loving pork.
I like your point about people writing their own Bibles. Jefferson did, but he had a very clear criterion for including and excluding stuff - he excluded all the supernatural stuff. This thread is all about the criterion moderates use to write their own Bible versions. All I’ve seen so far is that include it if it seems right to you. That seems hard to justify for an even partially inspired work. Sure accepting that humans may have messed up the message justifies the editing, but how is one sure you include the truly inspired parts and exclude the noise and not vice versa?