That seems exactly the same as any atheist rationalizing something away because they prefer something untrue to remain true.
In either individual what matters is their personal comittment to being honest with themselves and an awareness of what they know vs what they just believe.
Exactly, which is why I maintain that a religious path might be exactly the right one for some.
If you’re talking about the truth material sense it’s off subject. We’re talking about moderate and liberal Christians who, I’m guessing, accept science and well grounded studies in seeking the truth. Personally I think there is also spiritual truth, or emotional truth if you prefer, as in, " I know I harbor anger and resentment sometimes and believe it’s not postive for me or anyone else. How do I stop doing that?" or just a very general, “How do I continue to improve myself and have a more positive impact on the people I encounter?” Is it true that slavery is wrong, and does it matter?
Not everyone that belongs to a certain religion embraces everything that religion teaches. A person could remain in the same group and still improve.
I agree when it comes to facts about the physical world, but that’s not the subject. IMO, since Christianity is supposed to be about seeking and valuing truth anyone who prefesses to believe in Jesus ought to value and factor in science over their denominational traditions. Many do not. Still, nobody would expect anyone to conduct an expiriment on conductivity and jus pray about it.
I think it’s just as importent as Joe down the street who is an atheist. There is the individual journey and then how that affects the society we are a part of. AS a society we face a lot of moral questions. Do youi think there’s any truth involved in those questions or is it all subjective and doesn’t really matter?
If only part they take completely on faith is that God exists and the HS is their spirtual guide to understand God and have a better impact on their fellow man, then we’re into an area that can’t be tested. My point being that over and over again in the NT Jesus says what your actions indicate about you is more importent than simply what you say you believe. If the religious path works for some then nobody can say another path would be just as good or better. Remember, we’re talking about moderate or liberal Christians here.
AS in “we hold these truths to be self evident”? While we acknowledge that morality is subjective I think humanity has shown that we percieve truth to exist in our relationship with the world and each other. That’s what I’m talking about. I think any religious person who values the truth over tradition will accept science and then use their beliefs to try and discern what is true regarding themselves, their personal growth and their impact on those they encounter. I’m not saying it’s a superior way. I’m only saying it’s a valid way and , for the sake of this thread, not an inconsistent way.
sorry I wasn’t clear. Hopefully this will serve as a response to your post before this one as well.
In fact , The NT itself never grants scripture divine authority in the sense that it is to be taken literally and followed exactly.Never claims there will ever be one final authoritative collection of scriture and no more. It only claims that the scriptures are inspired by God, and good for guidence in the life of seeking God. In other places it refers to the Word of God as a living thing and tells us the HS will guide us into all truth. So, IMO, those who insist the Bible is literally the word of God and the only book with real divine authority, are being far more inconsistent with what is written and even according to their own stated beliefs. OTOH, if a liberal Chrhstian believes the Bible is simply an inspired and useful guide and the only divine authority comes from communion with the living word, the HS, then they are being far more consistent with the Bible and within their own belief system.
Regarding the divorce passage. AS with the passages on homosexuality, one can at least consider the culture of that time, {male dominated with women as 2nd class citizens} and wonder if Jesus is addressing specific people concerning a specific practice of that time, or giving a more far reaching commandment to anyone who follows him, ever. A judgement call I guess. I think at the very least we can say he’s telling his followers to take the committment of marriage very seriously and not end it simply because you’re tired of your spouse and want a new one, or they happened to piss you off.
Not exactly the same when you consider the religious culture one is raised in. For an atheist to change his mind about the nature of the universe he must go against his own beliefs, but a religionist also goes against the beliefs of friends and family. There is societal pressure added on…and you still have the added supernatural problem that some religions bring: “It sounds logical and right…but that could also be the voice of Satan.” When the righteous are described as steadfast, true and right, and Satan and his minions are described slick, smooth, easy going and clever, you can see why compromise might be hard for some sets of religionists.
In fairness, Christianity does not have the exactness of the Law in terms of what behaviors are proscribed. However, Jesus and Paul do make pretty firm claims about certain types of conduct. It’s hard to argue that the things they spoke out against are not sins. They said they were pretty directly.
Oh.
So it’s Jesus and Paul now?
This has nothing at all to do with literalism. I suppose the Catholic ban on divorce comes from this passage, and Catholics are nowhere near to being literalists. I don’t know the history of this quote, but it is perhaps in the set that is as close to being the actual words of Jesus as any. If you are Christian then I’d think that you’d think of the words of Jesus as being as close to divine as any - and not inspired, literally divine. You can reject the Nativity story and the flight to Egypt, but this quotation hardly demands that one accept miracle stories.
Explanations you can come up with are beside the point. Divorce was legal in Judaism. Divorce was legal in the surrounding Roman culture. And his justification was not respect for women, it seems to be the paradox of who would be married to whom in heaven, which didn’t bother Jews since we don’t have heaven.
I’m sure a real Christian could help us out with the justification for the authority of the NT. Not something I studied in Hebrew School.
I’m sure Protestants have good reasons for rejecting the passage and allowing divorce, but I have no idea what they are. It is a great example because any subset of the Bible that a Christian would come up with would include the words of Jesus, I’d think.
The issue then, though, is that not everyone agrees with you. In fact, I’d wager that a majority of people in the world would say that there was one way to truth and “true” personal growth, though of course they’d all disagree on that one way. The problem becomes then that, while a particular person might feel that religion X satisfies their emotional needs and pushes them to be a better person, the doctrine of that religion usually is fairly clear that that’s because that is the right way.
The Bible doesn’t say “Hey, if this stuff works for you, good, if not, go find something that does.” It’s “This is what will work, because this is what is true” - to whatever extent the contents are taken as analogy or loosely applicable or re-definable, it claims truth for its own. As do, I’d guess, most religions.
I’m actually very against this. Belonging to a group that agrees with your partially but not totally is, I think, immoral for a variety of reasons.
I’d say that “Killing is wrong” is subjective, and “I truly believe killing is wrong” isn’t, or at least isn’t to the extent we can ever get objective truth. But I don’t believe that “This is my experience, and this is what I honestly believe” is any greater evidence than someone else who can say the same thing - and more than that, that because we can hold up so many people with the same certainty and opposing beliefs, that we shouldn’t even take our own experiences as particularly “valid”. There’s no reason to, erm, believe what we believe. Belief itself is contraindicated.
Inconsistency, in the end, is only really applicable to self-professed ideals. I don’t think we can say “This person is Christian, yet they do/believe X, so they can’t be.”, because Christianity and any real-life religion encompasses so many beliefs that we can’t assume very much. There isn’t a set of rules to tick-box, the commandments aside, and they’re debated. If we want to point out inconsistencies, really we need volunteered information. If someone says “I’m a Christian, and because of that I believe we should be generous at all times to others”, and we witness them passing a beggar with not so much as a penny given,* then* we can reasonably point out inconsistencies. Even then though they might well define generosity some other way, or have some other reasoning that would explain it.
What do we (or more precisely, the OP) mean by “moderately religious”?
I consider myself fervently religious. I attend church every week. Sing in the choir. Participate in leadership. Volunteer my time, tithe my income. Pray and read the bible with my family every day. Go on short-term missions, feed the poor, spend a Saturday morning cleaning up the church.
But I support marriage equality, universal health care, social welfare, gun control, science education, available birth control, immigration reform and military cutbacks, and believe in salvation for *all people *by the grace of God through Jesus Christ.
Actually, from that last sentence you should strike the “But” and insert “Therefore.”
So where do I fall on the spectrum? I may be politically moderate - even liberal - but I take offense to being called “moderately religious.” I’m all in.
And yet millions of Christians get divorces and then remarry.
Are you going to be the one to tell them they aren’t really Christians?
You’ve just reduced the entire human population to churches (and political parties) of exactly one member.
Colbert would say so. 
Christians, but sinners. And they are going to have to deal with being forced to live with their first wives in heaven.
Skammer: are there any specific dogmas or doctrines that Christianity (taken as a superset of all Christian denominations) holds to be true, but which you have chosen to set aside?
You mention you support marriage equality and birth control. That, already, points to places where you differ from many, many Christians. If you’re a Protestant, then you differ from doctrines of the Catholic Church.
Does your Minister ever deliver sermons that you disagree with, in whole or even in part? Do you make up your own mind?
In the context of the OP, if there are things your church believes but which you have decided to hold as exceptions, you may be “moderate.” The counterpart, in this context, is “absolutist literalist.”
I hold this to be a really good thing! I think everyone should practice moderation of that kind. Ultimately, a Christian pretty much has to: you can’t be both Catholic and Protestant. Something has to go.
Lucky for them there is no marriage there! There’d be a lot of ethereal bigamists!
Swedenborg would like to have a word. 
Or incredibly simplified down church creeds and political parties. Either way, yes.
It’s not the marriage, it’s the living together.
I’m still on my first wife, so I’m good in any case.
There are very few items of dogma I can think of that the superset of all denominations would agree on; but I can say the Nicene Creed without crossing my fingers so I would say no.
Yep, I do differ from many, perhaps the majority. But there are also many who agree with me. It’s not a monolithic organization. My wife and I disagree on some things too but that doesn’t make us less married. And there’s only two of us.
I’m sure sometimes she does, but nothing comes specifically to mind right now. Certainly I’ve heard other Christian ministers give sermons that I disagreed with in whole or in part.
My feeling is that those are not opposites. By no means am I a literalist; but I want to clarify that “moderate” does not equal “lukewarm.” My specific denomination is light on dogma, beyond the ancient creeds of the church. We put a great detail of stock in what we call our baptismal covenant - the oath we make in the liturgy of baptism:
*Celebrant: Will you continue in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers?
People: I will, with God’s help.
Celebrant: Will you persevere in resisting evil, and, whenever you fall into sin, repent and return to the Lord?
People: I will, with God’s help.
Celebrant: Will you proclaim by word and example the Good News of God in Christ?
People: I will, with God’s help.
Celebrant: Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself?
People: I will, with God’s help.
Celebrant : Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?
People: I will, with God’s help.*
Fair enough. The OP didn’t put it that way, and I certainly wouldn’t. There are some very fervent Christians who are, nevertheless, very moderate, both in terms of Biblical interpretation and in their overall personal and social expressions.
The OP lost me right off the bat, by arguing against moderation in the first of those forms, if not in the second.
Personal fervency of belief isn’t particularly threatening, but absolutism/literalism, and personal extremism, both are.
First, other passages say no divorce except for sexual immorality rather than no period. Even if we accept that as solid direction from JC. It doesn’t change my point. Can social norms influence individual and group beliefs? Sure. People are still fallible as believers.
it’s also possible for people to see that as Jesus addressing a specific issue in that society. Maybe that’s justification, maybe not. Divorce is a pretty personal thing. If someone is sincerely trying to seek the guidance of the H.S. Then they will likely do so through marital problems. IMO the more liberal Christians are still more consistent than literalists. If you’re a literalist, you wind up not following some passage and then trying to justify why. Someone who sees the Bible as a guide and looks internally for their direction will still be less than perfect, but see their growth as an ongoing path. Consistency doesn’t mean perfection.