How is this contradictory in any way, or is that what you were even getting at?
Actually that is what I said in fact, and I also fail to see how this is contradictory. He was a good man; I try to be a good man. The fact that he believed in God and I don’t doesn’t change that.
I believe conservative Christianity is a lot more widespread than you are giving it credit for. For one thing, my grandfather lived in southern California his entire life, not “my tiny corner of the world.” Let us not forget Ted Haggard’s 30 million strong conservative congregation, the 700 club, virtually every televangelist.
I haven’t had time to stew on them yet. I’ll read most of them a couple more times.
Is the assumption here that a “Christian” is defined as someone who accepts some sort of doctrine on faith, and excludes those who simply admire and try to model themselves after the teachings of Christ?
Where I come from (my father was an Episcopalian minister) one’s status as a Christian didn’t have such a litmus test. You were welcome to call yourself a Christian whether you parroted the Nicene Creed or not, it was up to you. There was no barrier to entry.
I’m sure they’re just not as outspoken. In my adult experience, religion tends not to come up much in casual conversation unless someone is talking about how the gays and ay-rabs and Hollywood lib’ruhls are going to hell.
The subject of the OP wasn’t what constitutes a Christian. Rather it was how can you question a part of the Bible without laying it all open to the interpretation of mere mortals?
My reading of the OP suggests that the subject was: “Why don’t Christians who aren’t my-way-or-the-highway literalists abandon Christianity now that it has been defiled by same.”
To recap:
Perhaps you’re interpreting the “make up your own religion” comment as a cynical jab. Perhaps so, hence my question about what who we’re talking about when we say “Christian.”
So what if it does? How does that necessarily mean that liberal Christianity has a different “point” than any other brand of Christianity, or any other religion in general? Why is Biblical inerancy necessary for a religion to have purpose?
Historically, what is being called on the SDMB “liberal” Christianity got its first nudges toward birth at the time of the Reformation. Martin Luther, ironically, (as he is either the author or primary proponent of sola scriptura), got it going when he investigated the scriptures held by the RCC and decided to eliminate several books on theological grounds. (Having removed several Old Testament books, he then found justification for doing so based on other criteria, but he had to be restrained from executing a similar purge on several New Testament books and his reasons were purely theological.)
While I am not sure that Luther would recognize the statement, (as either factual or valid), he actually demonstrated an important point regarding the trend in thought that eventually became “liberal” Christianity: Faith does not proceed from Scripture (despite Luther’s words); Scripture proceeds from the recognized faith of the group (as indicated by Luther’s actions). Long before there was a New Testament, there were people who held certain beliefs. Members of the group wrote down those beliefs and later generations of that group collected the works that most nearly produced a (somewhat) coherent collection of those beliefs. The belief preceded the writings. (The same is true regarding the Old Testament or Tanakh. Regardless whether one believes that Moses wrote the Torah just before he died and the Hebrews passed into Canaan or whether one believes that a number of old works were redacted to create a body of belief after the Babylonian exile, there had to have been some sort of shared experience or belief to which the written word gave voice–otherwise it would have been dismissed by the people who recognized its errors.) in much the same way, the Qur’an was not actually collected until several years after the death of Mohammed. Without getting into any debates regarding the accuracy of the collection or its redaction, it is pretty clear that Mohammed was able to gather a group of people around him to share his beliefs before that group ever heard or saw an actual text of the Qur’an.
As the collective faith of the group changes, the understanding of what is meant by various passages changes, as well. It is not even a new process. The Talmud is an ancient exploration of the meaning(s) of the Tanakh with any number of variant understandings (coalescing,eventually, into what we now see as Judaism). There were frequent theological opinions in the early days of the church, with different people reading the same passages in quite different ways. The books were retained on the basis that overall they provided a core document to which the group could look in conjunction with other commentaries, from scholars or councils as a way to gather inspiration and to prevent getting too far away from that core belief.
From that perspective, it is actually more difficult to defend a literal interpretation, since, as Augustine of Hippo noted in his work de Genesis,
Does this open up such interpretations of scripture to charges of cherry picking? Probably. However, there is a fairly strong current of belief that must continue to run through the group for the texts to be accepted and held in regard and while that faith is open to some changes, it typically proceeds to change rather slowly as the group encounters different events.
So when someone points out that different groups do not all believe the same things, based on the same books, or someone notes that a changing view of Scripture prety well shoots down a belief that God actually authored the Bible (in one fashion or another), I simply agree. The bible is a repository of stories and lessons on which believers rely to keep from going too far astray, but those stories and lessons are not, themselves, seen as having been directly written by the hand of God.
I believe I am correct when I say that the United Methodist Church, various Presbyterian Churches, and Anglican Churches (Episcopal) do not require belief in the Bible as the literal word of God. Individuals within the churches may hold opposing views.
That may be the largest organized group of liberal Christians, but you might be surprised at the liberal viewpoints that come from even rural Southerners. My father was such a man. He did not believe that Christianity was the only path to enlightenment. Neither does Billy Graham, by the way. And he’s a Baptist from the South. He said on Larry King one night that he doesn’t believe that a person has to believe that Jesus is the son of God to “go to heaven.”
David, I believe that it is better to interpret the Bible for myself – with the right preparation and the guidance of the Holy Spirit – than it is to depend on a minister to interpret it for me. That doesn’t mean that I don’t get input from ministers, but I don’t just take their word for it. If a minister said something that just didn’t ring true to you, would you believe it? What do you rely on for interpreting the Bible?
Cisco, I don’t believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible because some of its earliest stories seemed more like parables and because there seemed to be conflicting views of God. When I was about eighteen I talked it through with someone I trusted and was able to resolve the issue for myself. I could be wrong, but that is what I believe.
It was about twenty-five or thirty years later (when I was not attending church) that a specific personal experience changed my thinking to an even more liberal viewpoint.
In November, I returned to the Protestant denomination of my childhood. I have found that many there have also become more liberal. Some attend Jewish services from time to time. Others study Buddist texts. My Sunday School class is currently reading a book by a Catholic monk. I like that kind of openness.
Just remember, not all liberal Christians believe the same things.
I am a Christian. I consider myself a fundamentalist Christian. The only thing I believe is that Jesus, who is Christ, the living son of God loves me. I don’t worship the bible. I don’t rely upon, or call upon authority by reason of historic or hierarchical position in the church. I have, and do read the bible, because it is the story of some people who have come to know God. That doesn’t mean that every word of every edition of every translation of every compilation represents some unassailable truth.
The bible is not The Word. The Lord is the Word. Every limitation on whose word was to be accepted as The Word was made by earthly authority. The only thing I know for sure is the Love of Christ. I consider that to be fundamental Christianity. Others have a different view, and often find my faith difficult to understand. Of course I don’t understand it either.
Since I don’t have much theology, I am forced to make my decisions of faith dynamically, on a moment to moment basis. I am responsible to the Lord alone, but He is always with me. So, there are no loopholes, except the one big one. He loves me. I fail, and he forgives me, and I must try again. Sin is that which turns me away from Him.
Aside from that, doing what I think the Lord would have me do is all the guidance I have, and I have no authority to decide that for someone else. I will speak out, and have on this board against what I consider false claims on that authority, when I think someone proposes evil in His name. I even rebuked someone here in this very forum, a long time ago. I probably stepped beyond myself then, but I was enraged by arrogant self aggrandizement being presented as piety. It could happen again.
Liberal? Yeah, I’ve been called liberal before. Actually I am a radical. But I have been tired lately.
i don’t think inerrancy is necessary. However, if everyone practices according to a private interpretation it sort of eliminates any need for either the Bible or organized religtion.
But if you believe the Bible to be fallible, how do you know that any of it is accurate? In my experience, most Christians seem to at least believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, and that he died and was resurrected. But how do you know that’s not allegory? Or do you believe Jesus was just a man, or that maybe there wasn’t a Jesus at all? How do you know God isn’t an allegory? Is it because a group of high-level church officials sat down a long time ago and made official proclamations as to what is or isn’t allegorical in the Bible? Do you just guess? Do you just pick and choose based on what makes you feel good? Or is there some other criteria?
Zoe, given that David Simmons has always been pretty much up front regarding his atheism, your questions regarding how he interprets the bible are rather puzzling.
So if you don’t believe all that is written in the bible, why do you believe any of it in particular? For instance, virgin birth. Do you believe this because your preacher tells you? I don’t suppose you claim he is infallible.
Nor did He change the incest & bestiality & child-sacrifice & necromancy prohibitions in Leviticus. Actually, the ONLY things in Leviticus that He changed was the priestly, sacrificial & festival stuff, and also the death penalties for crimes against the Covenant- and He only changed all that by taking it all- the priestly, sacrificial, festival & capital punishment for Covenantial violations- upon Himself.
The Levitical sexual prohibitions were reinstated by Paul in Romans 1, with no indication that JC or the other Apostles would have disagreed.
