of course not everyone does. We,re not talking about everyone. You’re off topic. Believers who are more liberal are generally more accepting of other religions.
Again we’re specifically talking about more liberal Christians.
I don’t get this. In my experience it’s very common for someone to be a member of a church and not embrace every detail of doctrine. It’s just human,not immoral. If you’re lying about it to get along that’s different.
Accepting of their right to exist and for people to live their lives by them, yes. I’m not sure I’d say that would extend so far to considering those religions as having equal merit or personal worth as their own. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure there it’s more common among the religious liberals/moderates, but I don’t know that that’s saying very much. I think most liberal religious people would still claim that it is their religion that has the path to truth, and use the “many paths to one goal” concept loosely with the idea that they are still fractured paths from their own.
We’re already very off-topic, mostly due to me, so I don’t want to go too far into this. But I feel that grouping of ideals blurs those ideals, that it leads to defensiveness of ideals that someone doesn’t hold, or that they actually do hold now because of their membership, and false information (though undeliberate) being shown to other groups.
I was looking at this again.
I think everyone wrotes their own Bible to various degrees. The more liberal Christians who are willing to admit they are interpreting as best they can within the limits of their humanity and personal foiibles are IMO far more consistent because of it.
Literalists and absolutists seem to unevitably have to rationalize some passages away and justify why passage X is plain and literal while passage Y {which seems just as plain} is not.
It seems obvious in the vast amount of different denominations and doctrines within Christianity that people are writing their own Bibles. The Bible must be interpreted through the imperfect lens of humans, even if you think the HS is helping you. There is simply no other alternative. Those who deny they are interpreting it and just following God’s word are fooling themselves. The fact is they are trying to follow God’s word as they interpret it, or someone does for them. even the idea that the Bible is intended to be taken literally is writing their own Bible since that isn’t in there. The more moderate to liberal Christians who accept this fact openly are IMO being far more consistent.
Why do you think one has to be sure? Clearly, because of such disagreement in doctrine , even those who claim to be sure can’t all be correct. Isn’t accpeting that one is doing the best they can and as humans cannot completely grasp an infinate God and the spiritual journey continues throughout life more consistent than being claiming to be absolutely sure about God’s will.
IMO it’s far more consistent and personally honest to claim, “I’m doing what I understand to be God’s will right now. Knowing I have more to learn and am imperfect, I’m open to learning and changing my perceptions as God is revealed in my continued seeking”
Ever read anything on these boards about an atheist who got flack from his parents and college friends because he or she became a believer. I have.
Completely agree.
One thing I’ve learned is that someone telling me they are a Christian or any other religion , or atheist or agnostic, tells me nothing about their character as a person. That’s why I keep saying, judge the actions and attitudes. They reveal the true inner person and where their priorities and principles lay.
It’s also why I keep taking exception to some of the more anti-religion threads in here, apart from what I see as bad logic and faulty reasoning. Being more secular as a moral system doesn’t seem any better than following a religion. We can’t really know what is a better path for other people.
Agree 100% that you can’t judge people on the category they claim, but rather their actions.
Isn’t it usually the other way around though? The religious (apart from using bad logic and faulty reasoning) often claim that religion is needed to be a moral person. The non religious typically claim that you can indeed be moral (or immoral) regardless of religion.
I would wonder if someone can truly believe Jesus died for our sins and is the only way to God, and then still say other religions are also valid. I’m not sure where along the lines of moderate to liberal Christianity that might fall. There is the parable of the sheep and goats which indiates those who are loving and kind and serve their fellow man are rewarded over those who simply believe in Jesus but don’t really serve others.
I think it’s possible to believe that if you are truly seeking God and acting out of love then you are also serving Christ the son.
I used to ask my conservative Christian relative "If Ghandi, who spent his life in pursuit of truth and serving God and others, is put off by bad Christians, and then gets to judgement to be told , “Bad Christians aside, Jesus is really the son of God” do you think that warrents condemnation?
I think it’s very possible for people to understand that the religious tradition that works for them doesn’t work for everyone, and the end result, spiritual growth, serving God and others, is more importent than details of doctrine which may or may not be accurate.
I think people grouping together for general reasons but not agreeing on all the details is an inevitable part of being human, whether it’s religion, a political party, or some social club. All part of the process IMO.
Considering believers still vastly outnumber those who openly acknowledge non belief I’d have to say it is usually the other way around. I do think those who make that claim tend to be the more rigid of the religious rather than the moderates and liberal religious.
I might guess that liberal Christians might see all acts of loving kindness being grounded in God. The difference being they acknowledge it and athiests do not.
At least for that last point, I think we’re in disagreement. Details of doctrine are one thing, but I think it’d only be true in case of really small, petty differences. I think it would go so far that some religious people, even moderates or liberals, would say that spiritual growth is impossible without adhering to certain standards. Look at questions around belief alone being necessary for salvation, vs. that plus good works and Christian behaviour.
Working together, yes. Grouping, no. Problems arise not when you and me work together to further some specific cause, but when we become Team C&RT.
Again, I can’t really say where the lines are drawn for moderate or liberal Christians. I have a friend at work who has been going to a Christian church for 10 years and has said he doesn’t have to agree with everything to enjoy going. He has doubts about Jesus rising from the dead. I guess the next question is whether he refers to himslef as Christian or not. I suppose we’d have to have a much clearer ieda of what a moderate or liberal Christian believes.
Some details of doctrine can be pretty significant, enough that we’ve got dozens of denominations because of them. Do you have to be baptized to be saved or not, for example. If salvation itself hangs in the balance that’s fairly significant.
Not sure I see a huge difference.
I’m sure even literalists interpret the Bible to some extent - some creationists have no trouble with the day to god is a thousand years bit. The difference would seem to be in passages which are reasonably specific and explicit.
If Dear Abby were writing the Ten Commandments number one would be - thou shalt seek counseling. The possible results of this counseling is what is at issue. A HS following the Bible would never recommend divorce.
In any case this is not a literalist versus non-literalist issue, unless you want to call Catholics literalists which would get many of them quite peeved at you. You can’t call someone a literalist for believing that a certain passage is correct and inspired, even if you (and I) disagree with it.
I don’t know how literalists deal with not following some passages. Some like most of the old laws are covered by the reboot. Maybe some are justified, and maybe some are not followed because they admit they are imperfect.
Is that any worse than not following some passages and justifying this by writing those passages out of the Bible? (Kind of like Groucho and Chico going over the contract in Night at the Opera.)
I’m not saying it’s literalist vs non literalist. I’m saying for some it’s about where the authority comes from. Is the Bible God’s word in a literal sense or is it a helpful guide with no real authority , with God and the HS being the authority.
Even a liberal or non literalist may interpret some passages more literally than others. Help the poor and needy is probably taken pretty literally by all while “give away all you have” may not be.
I’m just saying that those who see the Bible as a guide and God alone as the only authority are being perfectly consistent in their beliefs when they interpret the Bible through their personal and modern society lens.
I’m not even saying better or worse since that can’t be quantified. I’m only saying that they are more consistent with what’s in the Bible and within their personal belief system than those who grant the Bible some final authority. Disagreeing with what I read in the OP and what others have posted.
I guess in the case of Catholics the Pope has the final authority and he decides which passages are literal and which ones aren’t.
I’d wager that a majority of Christians, liberal or otherwise, would say that a lack of belief in the Resurrection would mean your work friend isn’t a Christian. As you say, he himself might not include himself in those ranks. The more orthodox Christians would probably disagree with his inclusion more, but I don’t think something along those lines would be widely accepted.
When “me and him and you and her” becomes “us”, problems form. Suddenly my behaviour reflects on you. Do we count things that we all agree on as part of our group’s founding beliefs, or is it just that we happened to agree on them? If our grandkids enroll in our group after we’re dead and gone, are they bound by our historic ideals? Not to mention the value that arises not from following group ideals but from being in that group.
A good, non-religious example would be the Freemasons. They don’t allow women to join - tradition, plus (as I understand it) issues with initiation rites. Those things could be changed, of course. But* tradition*, a value arising from the existence of the group and not the ideals of the group, weighs against it. Or look at politics. How easy it is to see someone attacking your “side”, and for you to get defensive on an issue that maybe you don’t even agree with them on because it’s your team, and the people arguing against it is the other team.
1: Most liberal Christians would not say he is not a Christian.
2: Yes the more fundamental Christians would say he is not, please note that orthodox is the wrong word to use.
Catholics do allow divorce under certain circumstances, they don’t like it but they allow it.
I think that the distinction is between those on the fringe (literalists) and people like you. I think that you are closer to what the majority of Australian Christians would feel.
Why, exactly? Yes, it could cause confusion and make people think the Eastern Orthodox Churches were being referred to. But “orthodoxy” in religious thought is a very standard concept. Anti-Trinitarianism, for instance, is “unorthodox” in most Protestant denominations.
(The lovely word “heterodox” is sometimes invoked.)
Spot on, Orthodox relates to the Eastern churches of Russia and Greece mainly but also points to a belief system based on the original teachings and IMO does not relate to the modern Pentecostal churches.
After re-reading your post I must disagree with you on your statement that fundamentalists are the true believers, any one who wants to believe anything and truly believe it (false or true) are truly believing, one can believe untrue things and refuse to accept the truth. They believe the Bible is the word of God, and also believed it is inspired by God, but in reality they are believing in another human being that decided what was of God.
They also (as most of us humans do) read the Bible can see contradictions, but ignore them. I know many fundamentalists who never really think of what they are reading Just what some minister told them, one had never read all the Bible and didn’t believe the psalmist said :" I said you are gods and sons of the most high" Nor John 10 where Jesus backs this up.
It is just that humans like to use what they would like things to be, if it helps them through life to be a better happy person and harms no other I see no harm in it, but don;'t think they should push their beliefs on others. Or make their beliefs the Law.
If Matthew was correct than Revelations would not happen,it is opposite of how Jesus said the end would come.
One doesn’t take it into what Jesus called the ,“Your Law” in John 10 He didn’t say:“Gods Law”, Nor that he also said, his purpose in coming was just for the Lost Sheep Of Israel!
The genesis story tells that the curse of man eating “from the fruit of the tree of knowledge” was that man has to work for a living, and childbirth hurts
Why does childbirth hurt so much to human women? Well, it’s because of our unique position as the thinking animal of this planet. Our huge heads don’t fit through the pelvis, so it hurts the mom like hell. Our huge heads of course are needed for our big brains.
Also, humans have to spend way more time “working” than animals and/or pre-agricultural peoples. Agricultural peoples have to spend pretty much all day long weeding, planting, harvesting, threshing, sewing/weaving, tanning, carving, tying (building), etc. Whereas pre-agriculture people, though they had higher mortality and lower standards of living, had way more leisure time, which makes sense, because their lack of technology/knowledge of skills meant their was much less value gained per amount of time spent working.
In other words, the punishments in Genesis directly parallel human evolution
DID I JUST BLOW YOUR MIND OR WHAT!?
I think Adam’s punishment may be more a commentary on the fact that it’s both our brains AND our HANDS that make us the creatures that we are, as it’s the hand thing that makes u have to “work” so much. So much time spent physically processing things into tools and edible food and shelter. Even the hunter gather gatherer peoples who had way more free time than agriculturists still had to spend a lot of time here and there making spears and huts and stuff. And surely that’s more time spent “working” than a lot of mammalian animals. I mean, what do like elk do all day? Walk around and graze, and run away if there’s a wolf.
But surely at least the childbirth thing is such an unlikely coincidence, right!?