Freethought & Rationalism Archive

wildernesse · 04-07-2003, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spaz
Those that don't believe in hell usually believe in some kind of "bad place" or something bad happening to them when they can get something really good if they're christian. Those that don't really confuse me as to why they still believe.

I don't know of any liberal Christians who don't believe in hell but still believe in punishment for non-Christians. Most liberal Christians are more universalist than that.

--tibac

Opera Nut · 04-07-2003, 07:21 PM

"Picking and choosing"???

Do any of you people know enough about the history of the Bible to know that the ancient church leaders were "picking and choosing" which books of the bible were canonical and non-canonical? Even today, the Catholics read the Apocrypha; the Protestants don't.

They tried to excise all references to women leading worship and women being disciples; all references to Goddess worship in the mystery religions of Mithra etc. that they stole from; and all references to reincarnation which they didn't like either.

All these doctrines that people think are set in stone are recent developments. The doctrine of biblical infallibility was invented by the Presbyterians in the 19th century to shore up their crumbling authority.

The Catholic doctrines of the Immaculate Conception, etc. were arbitrary rules passed by human popes and councils of human popes who were dominant males trying to be even more dominant of other humans in their political system, after the collapse of the Roman Empire.

I learned all this stuff in my religion courses at a Presbyterian college (speaking of liberal Xtians). I enjoyed my religion courses because they consisted of history and philosophy; not shoving church doctrine down our throats. My professors had all gone to Harvard and Princeton and had D.D's(Doctorates of Divinity/Ancient Languages). I doubt if any fundy could have passed these courses that I made As and Bs in, after studying a lot.

PS: "A LOT" is TWO WORDS.

Tercel · 04-07-2003, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MattofVA:
I have more respect for fundies than liberalized, cafeteria, mainstream christians.

Well I have more respect for people who are knowledgeable, reasonable and tolerant. As such I find I have more respect for liberals than fundamentalists (be they atheist or theist).

Quote:

Fundies actually have their own beliefs rather than reading modern values into the nicer 10 percent of the bible while casting off the rest.

I would have thought it is the other way around. Surely the fundamentalist's belief is simply that of the Bible or their Pastor, while the liberal has actually thought for themselves and developed their own beliefs? Isn't freethinking good?

Quote:

See, it's not the values behind liberal xtianity that I find troublesome, it's the historical revisionism.

Doubtless some liberals perform historical revisionism - everyone likes to think their particular beliefs are True Christianity. But generally liberals actually know their Christian history reasonably well, which is a sight more than can be said for the average believer or atheist.

Quote:

Liberal religious folk really seem to think their take on the whole thing is closer to the beginnings of xtianity than the fundy version, when in fact the nice, liberal version of xtianity, with the exception of some obscure minority sects which appeared rather sporadically, is largely an invention of the past century or two.

Well that's a gross generalisation so I can't really comment. But I suspect we do disagree - since I'm a liberal Christian.

Care to be specific about what particular teaching of liberals is a new invention?

Quote:

All in all, liberal xtians are nicer, smarter people than fundies maybe, but why do they bother calling themselves christians?

Because they are?

Quote:

They are just erroneously self-labeled individuals who are really quasi-new age humanists, deists, or even agnostics.

Obviously if they are not really Christians then they are misusing the name. Certainly I have seen many people call themselves liberal Christians who I would not regard as Christians. But there still really are liberal Christians out there who are really Christian and who don't need to be tarred with the same brush: Myself included.

I believe in God the Father. I believe he is the creator of all. I believe he was before everyone else, I believe he is more powerful than anyone else, I believe he is more knowledgeable than anyone else, I believe he is present everywhere.
I believe in Jesus Christ, God and Man: One Person, Two Natures (and heck, even Two Wills if anybody cares). I believe he was born of a virgin. I believe he was baptised, that he taught, and that he performed miracles. I believe he died and rose again. I believe his incarnation and death was to deal with sin and reunite man unto God. I believe he shall come again at the end of this world and establish an everlasting kingdom.
I believe in the Holy Spirit and his coming at Pentecost. I believe he works within people to transform them into selfless, loving beings. I believe he empowers such things as Healing and speaking in tongues.
I believe in the existence of demons and angels. I believe that some will gain eternal happiness and others eternal suffering in the life to come.

Am I a real Christian? Am I allowed to call myself a liberal Christian? Or am I really a deist, a humanist, an agnostic?

Just in case anyone was confused into thinking I was a fundamentalist here's a few other tidbits:
I accept evolution. I reject Biblical Inerrancy with bells on. I advocate scholarly analysis of the Bible. I reject Sola Scriptura. (That the Bible is the sole foundation of doctrine) I largely accept the Eastern Orthodox teaching on salvation. {Hence: I reject Penal Substitution (A Protestant invention that Jesus died 'cos a superior Necessity demanded that God punish someone before He was allowed to forgive us). I reject exclusive (Christian-only) salvation and the idea that salvation is belief-based.}

Doctrine-wise there's little difference between me and your standard conservative Eastern Orthodox Christian. In practice though, I like the informal, unritualistic, Protestant forms of worship (probably simply because I was brought up with it) and the Protestant lack of a authoritative church hierarchy (I'm a freethinker).

Quote:

Why, also have so few secularr intellectuals caught on to these facts? ...Again, why do so few people catch on to this stuff?

Because it's not true?

===============================

Quote:

Originally written by Spaz:
To clarify my position at least, what pisses be off about the whole thing is that they vary so much from fundies and they accept so much of the bible as metaphorical and stuff, why the hell can't they just drop the religion? Maybe another thread should be made on thoughts of that, mine being that they're just scared shitless of hell.

If they still believe in the existence of God the various things about Jesus, then surely that's a good reason for them to keep being Christians, even if they don't believe other parts of the Bible are false?
As others have commented: Most liberals aren't scared of hell, because hell is usually one of the first things that they liberalize their beliefs regarding. Virtually all liberals would agree that being a Christian is not necessary to go to Heaven. Hence they can hardly be Christians because they're scared of hell.

Tercel · 04-08-2003, 05:15 AM

Correction to my above post:

Quote:

If they still believe in the existence of God the various things about Jesus, then surely that's a good reason for them to keep being Christians, even if they don't believe other parts of the Bible are false?

The above should read "....true".

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-07-2003, 07:21 PM	#62
Opera Nut Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Houston TX Posts: 1,671	"Picking and choosing"??? Do any of you people know enough about the history of the Bible to know that the ancient church leaders were "picking and choosing" which books of the bible were canonical and non-canonical? Even today, the Catholics read the Apocrypha; the Protestants don't. They tried to excise all references to women leading worship and women being disciples; all references to Goddess worship in the mystery religions of Mithra etc. that they stole from; and all references to reincarnation which they didn't like either. All these doctrines that people think are set in stone are recent developments. The doctrine of biblical infallibility was invented by the Presbyterians in the 19th century to shore up their crumbling authority. The Catholic doctrines of the Immaculate Conception, etc. were arbitrary rules passed by human popes and councils of human popes who were dominant males trying to be even more dominant of other humans in their political system, after the collapse of the Roman Empire. I learned all this stuff in my religion courses at a Presbyterian college (speaking of liberal Xtians). I enjoyed my religion courses because they consisted of history and philosophy; not shoving church doctrine down our throats. My professors had all gone to Harvard and Princeton and had D.D's(Doctorates of Divinity/Ancient Languages). I doubt if any fundy could have passed these courses that I made As and Bs in, after studying a lot. PS: "A LOT" is TWO WORDS.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.