Harumi

How about just leaving them alone?

As far as I can see, once a person reaches "Freethinker" on that list, he/she is pretty home free.

You don't need to do that much work.

Pyrrho

I disagree. I think going to a position that is inherently contradictory is a very backward step.

Pyrrho

I think you are very wrong in the conversion process, at least for many. I think that many fundamentalist Christians who become atheists go through this set of stages:

1) From fundamentalist Christian to one who questions and wonders, but still believes.
2) From one who questions and wonders, but still believes, to an agnostic.
3) From agnostic to atheist.

I think going to "liberal" Christian is a step backwards, as far as being a rational thinker is concerned.

And QueenofSwords is a good example of what I am talking about. QueenofSwords does not appear to be irrational enough (even when a Christian) to ever be tempted to believe in Christianity without believing in its foundation.

seebs

Inherently contradictory? I don't think so. Every time someone tries to convince me that liberal Christianity is "inherently contradictory", it turns out that there are fundamentalist premises being assumed to be crucial to Christianity. Liberal Christianity does just fine.

seebs

Could you be specific about which "foundation" you think Christianity rests on, which you think liberal Christians don't accept?

Pyrrho

Without the Bible, there would be no Christianity. "Liberal" Christians pretend that the Bible is the word of god when it pleases them to do so, but reject the Bible when it pleases them to do so. This is fundamentally inconsistent. At least with fundamentalist Christians, they consistently accept the Bible rather than play the kinds of games that "liberal" Christians tend to do.

If the Bible is the word of god, then the fundamentalists are right, and the "liberal" Christians are wrong. But if the Bible is not the word of god, then it is just another book written by men (and possibly some women), with nothing special about it at all.

Now, if you believe I am mistaken about the Bible being the foundation of Christianity, by all means, make your position clear to us, if you can.

seebs

Better build a time machine, there's some nice folks in the year 150 who need to be warned that they can't believe anything yet, because the canon hasn't been selected yet.

Simply false. Both groups accept and reject things based on their best understanding of what the intent of the text is. The liberal Christians I know do not reject the Bible; they reject other people's interpretations of it.

False dichotomy. The Bible could be an inspired but imperfect book. The Bible could be partially inspired. The Bible could be non-literal. Many options exist.

The main problem here is that you seem to have accepted the false fundamentalist premise that the Bible cannot be understood as anything but a flatly literal historical text. That assumption is not borne out by anything in the text, and is an invention of the last hundred and fifty years or so; really, it's hard to find anything unambiguously holding to that position predating about 1910.

Before that, people understood that there were parables, allegories, and metaphors, and interpretation and hermeneutics were an important part of what it meant to say that someone "accepted" the Bible.

The fundamentalist position that the Bible is either literal and historical fact, or nothing special at all, is patently silly, and does not constitute a useful critique of the positions of liberal Christians.

When trying to show a position inconsistent, you can't just grab premises that aren't part of it, weld them in, and say "look, a contradiction!".

Hubble head

I've wondered alot about instilling the ability to think critically or logically in grown ups who still believe in 2000 year old fairy tales too.

I think I might get one of those books on how members of cults are deprogrammed some day.

I would think that taking issue with one's security blanket right away would be impossible with many and highly difficult with the rest. Could there be some better way to teach them how to see reality without ever raising the subject of religion?

Pyrrho

The books that comprise the Bible had been around before they were selected as "canon". Indeed, without it being already written, there would have been nothing to select as canon. Without anything being written down, what do you think would have happened to Christianity?



I will not speak of "those you know", but "liberal" Christians routinely reject bits of the Bible when it pleases them to do so. A typical example is what Jesus says clearly and explicitly in Matthew 5:

"Liberal" Christians routinely ignore any and all laws in the Old Testament that they don't like, like the stuff about killing all witches, killing all women who are not virgins when they are married, killing all men who engage in homosexual acts, etc. There is no reasonable way to take these explicit commands "metaphorically". They are simply ignored by most "liberal" Christians, not explained as a metaphor for something else. (By all means, tell us how they could be taken metaphorically, if you believe that that is what happens. If you are a "liberal" Christian yourself, you should have a ready answer, or it will show that you have been ignoring it rather than giving it some special interpretation.)

With a fundamentalist, there is typically an attempt at following everything (that they know about), not simply a rejection of the passages that may displease them.



Perhaps I should be more explicit about being the "word of god". If it were dictated by god, so that everything is his word, then, if it is imperfect, it would show that god is imperfect. But if it was not dictated by god, but some guys, who were believers, just wrote what they thought, then it would be no more relevant than any other book written by believers.

Now, if you mean to suggest that some of the books of the Bible are the word of god and some are not, then we would just be talking about a different canon, not a difference between being a fundamentalist and a "liberal" Christian.

As for the Bible being non-literal, that would show that the author(s) were incompetent, as there are ways to indicate that something is a parable instead of literally true. Indeed, there are examples in the Bible itself of stories that are presented as parables, which is highly suggestive that the parts that are presented as being literally true are meant to be literally true. And if the authors were incompetent, then the book is pretty worthless. (Again, some of the passages seem to allow of no metaphorical meaning, such as the killing of witches, etc., listed above. But if you have any suggestions for a metaphorical meaning to the laws, then, by all means, let us hear what you have to say.) Furthermore, I have never met ANYONE who regards the entire Bible as being non-literal. I guess you don't believe that there ever really was a guy named Jesus who rose from the dead? Or that there was a group of people, called Israelites, who moved into the "promised land"? If you do, then you are taking some of it literally. You then are in a position in which you need to justify taking some of it literally and some of it as metaphor, if you are going to have any claim to rationality.



You have just proven that you know pretty much nothing about the history of Christianity. I suggest you read some of the works of Augustine to get a better idea of what has been believed by Christians for a very long time, well before 1910.



There are, to be sure, parables within the Bible that are clearly presented as being parables. But there is also text that is presented as historical fact. I suppose you believe that the authors of the Bible were grossly incompetent, as, according to you, it seems that they should have presented it all as a parable.



You are very funny. Thank you for helping to prove that my claims are exactly correct.

fromtheright

1) From Fundy to Conservative Christian
2) From Conservative Christian to Liberal Christian
3) From Liberal Christian to Freethinker
4) From Freethinker to Agnostic
5) From Agnostic to Soft Atheist
6) From Soft Atheist to Hard Atheist
7) From Hard Atheist to Secular Humanist
8) (optional) From Secular Humanist to Secular Transhumanist

Sounds like the slippery slope to hell once you get past conservative Christian.



SLD,

I think the key is getting a person to have a rationalist world view. I've seen other discussion boards where a fundy has said that it doesn't matter what the evidence was - she believed that Jesus was her savior and rose from the dead. Kind of like that old bumper sticker: God said it, I believe it, and that settles it. There's no sense in arguing with that. You've got to get them at a more basic level to see the world in a different way.

I disagree. I think that even with with the hardcore fundie you've described I think it is possible to get them to "the dark side" by asking them to question certain concepts within Christian doctrine. For myself, as you know, I question some concepts such as hell and original sin from a justice standpoint. If you ask them how some of the concepts square with certain universals such as justice I think you at least plant seeds for thought. You will of course get the pat "Our understanding of justice is imperfect" when speaking with them but they still have to come to grips with it.

Gene/FTR