seebs

I assume so.

I don't know. I'd have to talk to them at some length. I've generally found that different people's experiences and personalities change the kinds of things that appeal to them. So, for instance, I know someone who has a very strong emotional need to have some kind of solid certainty in his life; he wants an Authority he can always appeal to. And, whaddya know, he's Catholic.

There are several ways of looking at this. One is to dismiss it all as wishful thinking. Another is to observe that, whatever we're talking about, it's friendly enough to talk to us in our own terms. Another is to observe that we are always seeing it through us-colored glasses; we see real things, but we interpret them a little according to our own nature.

But what do I care? It's my best working model, and my attempts to get past my own biases are necessarily gonna fall short. But I keep looking, and poking at things, and I seem to be finding confirmation that my model is working well enough, and that's all I can ask for of any model.

johntheapostate

I think that liberal christianity is about filling an emotional need. When faced with a choice between a pleasant delusion or facing reality head on most people choose a delusion. They will refuse to acknowledge the irrationality of there position becouse to do so would demolish there morale and emotional framework. It also has to do with tradition and being a part of something larger than themselves. In christian countries we have christian liberals and in muslum countries we have muslem moderates. In some ways the liberal is more deluded than the fundementilist. Both camps hold to certian teachings and ignore others This is due to the contradictory nature of scripture. The differance is that liberals deny much larger portions of scripture and still insist that it is one coherant message from god. For instance the fundementalist is deluded if he believes in a literal interpretaion of genesis. The liberal will deny that genesis is literaly true. In this way he denies the only reason that is given for christs death on the cross. (fall of man) Yet expects the skeptic to believe in the divinity and purpose of jesus. The bible is the only evedence for christianity if it is suspect in some areas it is suspect in all areas. In some ways I prefere the fundementilist to the liberal christian. It is easier to debate the fundementilist using the only piece of evedence (the bible) if they initially believe it to be true than to debate the liberal who concedes that large parts of it are not to be taken literally. There may be some elements of pascells wager involved in the liberal position. The fear of hell still prompts them to acknowledge christianity, while the love of earthly things cause them to abandon those parts of scripture which interfere with the full participation of a secular lifestyle. They want there cake and to eat it to. Christianity is a religion bases on a extreme liberal interpretation of judeism. This is why we have the doctrine of progressive revelation. We are not to interprete the old testement on the basis of a clear and literal interpretation of itself, but are to interprete the old testement based on the "truths" revealed in the new testement.

Rational BAC

Why should a liberal, non fundy Christian believe in Christianity?

Well, why the hell not?

I mean it ain't a half bad religion. I just love the Sermon on the Mount. Don't you?----------even if you are an atheist --- don't you just love it?, if just for the absurdity of it---isn't it something that the normal human would never ever think of?

It is the Sermon on the Mount that draws me to Christianity. How absurd a conception. How sublime a conception. How "unhuman" a conception.

Christianity is a goal. Possibly never realized by us humans. Maybe was never meant to be. Just something to be hoped for.

But it is worth a try.

seebs

How dare we not line up where your gun is pointed!

This, however, is just plain false. I don't think my religious beliefs have anything to do with hell. I am not saved because I wear one name tag instead of another. But... In fact, I find that liberal Christianity compells one to give up a lot of aspects of a "secular lifestyle". Different ones, perhaps, than fundamentalists give up. They cling to things I have cast aside because they were weighing me down, but I suppose it looks the same from their perspective.

johntheapostate

I am sometimes accused of making generalizations about christians and I will stop when the bible stops making generalizations to the eternal desteny of those who dont believe in christ. When christians renounce the bible and admit that it is a manmade hoax. Untill then I will hold them to a literal interpretation rather then let them sweeten its message to make it palatable to the general public. As it stands the majority of christians remain biblically illiterate to the book that constitutes the only "proof" of there god. Why should I give any quarter to the followers of the monster they call yaweh

seebs

Errors remain wrong, even if the people you are speaking falsely of are also in error.

Hmm.

So, until you admit that IIDB is "a hoax", I can hold you to a literal interpretation of every word written on the site, no matter who it was written by?

The only other alternative is a "hoax"?

What false dichotomy is this I see before me?

Perhaps you shouldn't, but if you persist in saying things which are not true of any Christian I know, and saying that this is what "Christians" are like, I will be fully justified in assuming that you have nothing to say of any relevance to the world I live in.

Which would raise the question of why you're posting to a message board at all. Why not discuss a world something like the one other people live in?

johntheapostate

To my knowledge no one has ever been burned at the stake on the witness of a post on IIDF. If anyone thinks christianity contains a positive message they should read the thread I started called free will or predestination. Here is just a little something from the bible These are the instructions of moses(who got his instructions directly from god) "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." Numbers 31:17-18

seebs

So?

You're making your argument worse than it needs to be.

Non-sequitur; the existence of a negative message does not preclude a positive message.

You're arguing with a straw man. While I am sure there exist people who hold the belief system you're attacking, most of them aren't here, and many people here, who are in the set of people you phrase your attacks as referring to, do not hold that belief system.

It's a fair trade. I don't hold you responsible for Pol Pot, you don't hold me responsible for Jerry Falwell.

johntheapostate

You are correct that what I am arguing against is a straw man It is a straw man created and upheld by the judeo/christian establishment and constitutes the only basis for its existance. In my opinion atheists are wasting ther time arguing on the possibility of the existance of some creative force called god. Have we accepted that if christians could prove the existance of some god they prove the validity of there belief. No the validity of there belief rest on the validity of the bible which is a straw man of there own making. If christians want to stake there position on a straw man I am free to burn it down." not one city made a treaty of peace with the Israelites who took them all in battle. For it was the lord himself who hardened there hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy" Joshua 11:19-20

Sven

Thanks! This seems to be an honest, open-minded answer!
It's of course no reason for anyone to convert , but at least something.