I haven’t read the rest of this exploding thread that got posted while I was eating dinner, but I’d be happy with anyone who would speak to it. No way do I think there is some sort of official moderate position. And most people who are religious - of any stripe - are not Biblical scholars. Yet they still make decisions and choose various subsets of the Bible and other writings to believe in. My question is how.
Ransom Sacrifice is one view that was developed in the early days of the church, and a lot of people believe that Jesus was God’s sacrifice to the Devil to free humankind from the Devil.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists view is that only a “perfect” human could have freed humanity from the Devil.
But if you ask the Catholic Church they say it is certainly startling if not revolting.
Again the story is meant to be understood as a liberation of human beings from the bondage of sin and death.
But the Bible has a lot of sentences. Some are obviously false. Some are reasonably true - like the names of kings in the more historical part. Some are unknown. Excluding the false part and the true part, how does someone sort the currently unknown parts into buckets of believable and unbelievable?
Atheists aren’t immune from this. Long after I became an atheist I accepted the story of the Davidic empire - which we now know is false. Kind of disappointing, but clearly easier for me to accept than it would have been if I was devout.
No, I said Catholics do not believe in it.
I don’t pretend to have all the answers for you. It seems you want a black and white definition, and that’s not something I can give you. I’m merely speaking from my own personal experience, which is obviously far different than your’s.
That gets very convoluted. It gets convoluted when you put in the Jesus is the only way and all the similar hyper religious, logically inconsistent claims.
None of that has any relevance. Historical fiction is fiction but can contain a reasonable accounting of true events. Some of the prophets wrote about their environment. Saying King X was defeated in battle might well be true - giving as a reason that God was mad at his father isn’t.
In fact, how about that as a base all the stuff it claims God does is false, but some of the stuff that just happens might be true. Or might not be. That’s what historical research is for.
Yes, they believe in revelation beyond the script. I misquoted due to terms I am not thoroughly familiar with.
Its relevant to me
Thank you both for chatting with me!!! I am not leaving the thread but I wanted to take a moment to say it is nice to talk and debate even because you both have some good points to make.
But I don’t mate that’s what makes me a moderate/liberal Christian, maybe not in the small town narrow minded American Christian way but certainly in the more evolved European/Australian way.
Mate there are many shades of grey and we all exist within it.
cheers.
The Christian take on the story is that their choice led to the inherent sinfulness of man which had to be redeemed by the sacrifice of Jesus. The Jewish take is that shit happens (like we have to work) because they screwed up. But that’s about it. (Or at least that is what I learned - and in my Hebrew School they never pretended that the creation story was history.) Yeah, we sin, and we ask atonement directly of God, and we usually get forgiven and live the next year.
Still not true but less screwed up.
I understand. And if you say that the Bible is an immoral book, that I won’t disagree with. Or at least I can accept that take on it. But it is not 100% factually incorrect.
High 90s, probably, but not 100.
That is the difference between philosophy and religion. One can read a book of “philosophy” Lao Tzu, Krishnamurti, Marcus Aurelius, Confucius, etc, books that are more advice for living than philosophy (like Hegel or Aristotle), works that give direct advice for living, you can gain a lot from such a book. (Not that Hegel and Aristotle don’t have value they are not as directly applied as Lao Tzu or Confucius)
But religious text are different, they are supposed to inject moral authority instead of simple sound advice. When Moral Authority gets turned into a “grey area” it no longer has any impact or validity. It’s just something written down somewhere that used to be called the truth but now is a “grey area”. How does that hold any authority, any impact?
On the other hand no true Scotsman was born in some other place of non-Scottish parents and never set foot in the Highlands.
Perhaps we can distinguish between small-C Christians and big-C Christians. Both Thomas Jefferson and Lenny Bruce said nice things about Christ’s message as we understand it. Neither were big-C Christians. There is a lot of philosophical benefit one might get out of the story (even if much of it is not original) while rejecting the supernatural stuff.
I’m not saying King Herod didn’t exist or that “be kind to others” is not relevant but neither of those is specifically a religious claim
Why does a religious text need to inject moral authority? It doesn’t have to hold any authority, that is a man made concept.
There are no absolutes.
Because if it — says — it is the truth, ie, the way the truth the light, and it turns out — not — to be the truth then it can’t be trusted. If you found out your doctor was lying to you, would you still put faith in his opinion?
Yep most people in Australia call themselves christians but they would view themselves a small c or moderate to liberal. In truth we are really cultural christians.
Doctors don’t claim to be perfect though. The same with many religious people. A great many are willing to accept that they may be wrong. (I suppose you could call it “Agnostic Christianity”. 
(BTW, maybe the title of this thread should be changed to moderate Christians, rather than religious. If only because not all religious people are Christians – far from it)