If you think that’s the only possibility, you need to consider more carefully. Furthermore, if you want to engage in discussion with someone, it’s generally a good idea not to dress their views up ridiculously.
One possibility is that liberal Christians read the Bible and ask themselves, “What message is God trying to give us here?”
I’m not defending Christianity. I think the Bible is a useful historical document, chock full of mythology (like any other historical document, to some extent), biased by the viewpoints of the authors, as well as a collection of oral history, edited at various times to serve different political purposes, and frequently the result of compromise between competing factions. (Two examples: one when the Pentateuch was constructed to dispel factionalism between two groups that had been geographically divided, and another under Constantine to put together a single edition of the Bible for Roman Christians.)
But there’s a big difference between intentionally making up a religion, and trying to find the messages in a revered text.
Admittedly, there’s as much of Christianity that is conveyed by culture as by gospel. For example, homosexuality is barely mentioned in the Bible, but it’s a huge issue for modern Christians. The New Testament is full of advice to not plan ahead but let God find a way, to help the poor, and to abandon oneself to one’s enemy, but political Christian pundits show no evidence of this advice. But the fact that people use their religion to confirm their prejudices doesn’t mean that they’re just making it all up in broad cloth.
Yes, for as much as modern liberal Christians like to talk about liberal existing Christians existing from ages past, as far as I can tell, almost everyone back then was a young earth creationist. Same with Catholics.
I’m sorry but I really think that literally believing in a few select miracles, described in a book that believed to be full or errors and fake miracles is ridiculous. If you can explain to me how that isn’t ridiculous, I’m all ears.
They might think they do that, but I think they are fooling themselves if they are really just cherry picking the parts they like.
Great, I agree that all that you say is true. However given the above, can you really take the resurrection of Jesus as credible?
In theory yes, in practice I think no.
I think it’s the liberal Christians who are making it all up broad cloth, or just following someone else who is or has. Liberal Christians think homosexuality is barely mentioned (like you say) fundamentalists know the Bible is clear, it says to kill them. The fundamentalists, to me, at least seem to be making an effort to follow the Bible. Unfortunately the Bible is pretty screwed up as a source of morals.
Skammer… I would like to know: How do you know the Bible has Devine Inspiration? Didn’t you learn this, was taught it, or you just like to believe it? In my studies I found it was all the word, and work of other human beings. Of course if the 81st in RC version, or 82d In KJ version are true than all are gods (and at best)Jewish men, The psalmist was talking to them.