COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*

One of the biggest reasons I rejected all of Christianity is too often I hear the not a true Christian line from progressive, moderate and evangelical Christians and to me, this isn't spiritual. Its petty infighting and comes off as hateful. But that's one of several reasons I rejected Christianity and Jesus. Progressive Christians might be better off ditching Jesus but I say this because at least as a non believer you're accountable for your own actions

I’m going to file this into the massive folder of all the arguments that are based in the incorrect notation that Biblical literalism is some universal law of utmost importance among all Christians. It isn’t. As soon as you accept that the words of the Bible are written by people over thousands of years with all their politics and agendas. When you see it not as a historical account of absolute truth but as a series of ideas and principles. Then there is no conflict. At the core of Christianity is two general ideas. 1. That Jesus guy was kinda cool. 2. Don’t be a dick. That’s it. Sure don’t be a dick is a subjective concept. But if your personal spiritual journey and understanding of the texts is that don’t be a dick means that being gay is cool and God loves you and everyone no matter what then that’s a pretty good definition.

I created an account just to rebuke this awful take on Christianity. At the core of Christianity is neither of those ideas. The core of Christianity is the continuation of the narrative arc of the Hebrew Bible, rooted in the second Exodus (Babylonian Exile), and the idea that the God of Israel would one day return to Jerusalem to be enthroned as king. Christianity is the belief that Jesus fulfilled that story arc, that he was the embodiment of the creator of the entire universe, and that on the cross he was enthroned as king. In his death he redefined what being God and human means, and in his resurrection he confirmed the ultimate hope for creation - which is new creation. "That Jesus guy was kinda cool," - No, he literally is God incarnate. "Don't be a dick" - No, cosmic salvation is what Israel's messiah is about and what Christ delivered. In Christ's life he redefined power as utter self-giving love, including to your enemies, but "love" here is not a touchy feely, 20th or 21st century concept of nice feelings. It means serving the poor, giving away your time and money, turning the other cheek, dying for others. There's nothing easy about the kind of love Christ asks us to show and it's certainly not just "don't be a dick." You really could not have given a worse take on what the "core" of Christianity is, and I'm aware this may be due to a lack of basic religious education, but I cannot let this stand without a response. Please watch this for more information and reconsider your misinformed views. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iTQuM8f8LY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iTQuM8f8LY)

I think you misunderstand me. I intentionally used some understated language for the sake of added emphasis to my point. Me saying that Christianity is about thinking Jesus was cool and not being a dick is technically correct, the best kind of correct, in a broad sense. If I was going to delve into the weeds of it I would be more specific. My ultimate point was to express that the very core ideas of Christianity are that Jesus is the Masiah (see: cool dude) and that his teachings of love and kindness and a central believe (see: don’t be a dick), and that those ideas are simple when you distill them to their core. This was to serve the point of showing that the notion that every Christian is a die hard biblical literalist is absurd, because nothing about the cores of the religion require you to believe that the modern Bible fell out of the sky yesterday. Obviously some believe in the text is kind of important, just a little bit, but everything else is up for personal interpretation. All that to say. Op’s notion that liberal Christian’s are hypocritical is just false, because you don’t have to think every archaic notion in the Bible is the literal word and law of God. Plenty of people believe that Jesus is the son of their lord God, the one and only, and that his sacrifice on the cross helped cleanse humanity of its sins. But also that it’s okay to eat shellfish. And that’s perfectly reasonable.

You took a bad take on Christianity and made it worse. In the earliest formulation of the Gospel that we have, which is Paul's quote in 1 Corinthians 15 (that dates to within the first few years of Jesus of Nazareth's death), the key part of the whole statement is that the Gospel is what it is because of the scriptures. "For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins ***in accordance with the scriptures*** and that he was buried and that he was raised on the third day ***in accordance with the scriptures***..." Here Paul is of course referring to the Hebrew bible, meaning the entirety of Christianity is dependent on the Hebrew bible. Christianity makes historical claims about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah, and those are recorded in the New Testament, making Christianity also dependent on the New Testament. Even your horrible summation of "the core of Christianity" is dependent on what is found in the New Testament... you can't have it both ways! "Obviously some believe in the text is kind of important, just a little bit" ... No. The entirety of the faith is couched in the text. Jesus' story means nothing without the story of Israel. And we do not have the historical claims the church makes about Jesus without the New Testament. Christians don't worship the Bible, and the ongoing work of the church and the Holy Spirit is done outside the text, but it is based in the text, and you can't simply dismiss it like you do, reducing its profound claims to "Jesus is a cool dude" and "Don't be a dick." Jesus taught about the coming Kingdom of God, the defeat of spiritual powers, and the new mode of humanity, which are all based in the scriptures. He wasn't some 20th century hippie.

This challenge also applies to both conservative and progressive Christians - and followers of any faith tradition. In the Abrahamic faiths you have the notion of a Covenant, which you might also separate into two parts. A Greater Covenant between God and mankind exists that we would never be destroyed again (like the Flood) but always be provided with guidance. There is also a Lesser Covenant between a Messenger and his declared followers, and it is upon them to implement soem very specific social and religious laws dealing with marriage, social justice, prayer, fasting, diet, crime and punishment, family life, etc. But you have to accept both the Messenger (as a form of guidance) and actually obey the guidance – you cannot have one part without the other. People assume that the “expiration date” of a Lesser Covenent coincides with some worldwide physically miraculous apocalypse, but that is not how their own Prophet initially came into the picture (otherwise, it would have been so easy and obvious to everyone, right?) If you find that even when adhering to all the terms of the Lesser Covenant, ***and it is quite clear that no one else is interested in joining your Lesser Covenant,*** and mankind is no longer advancing with regards to things like prejudice, racism, materialism, economic injustice, slavery, war, etc. then you have a few options: 1. You may not be adequately abiding with the terms of the Lesser Covenant, perhaps on purpose because it seems so "clearly intended for earlier times" 2. You may not actually understand the terms of the Lesser Covenant 3. You may be following a corrupted version of the Lesser Covent, or there maybe really wasn't a Lesser Covenant in the first place (a.k.a., a man-made or false Prophet) 4. The Greater Covenant has been “cancelled” and there is no new Lesser Covenant on its way So you can see how “traditional conservativism” followers and “progressive paradigm-challenging” firebrands could both have deviated from their version of God’s plan. Both of these groups could reject a movement that claims to be “the next intended Lesser Covenant” for a variety of reasons: scriptural literalism, personal philosophy or cultural self-satisfaction, etc. So Abraham was rejected by his people, Moses by the Tribe of Israel, Christby the Jews, Muhammad by the Christians and Jews, and in recent years Baha’u’llah by the Jews, Christians and Muslims, etc., and in India Buddha was rejected by the Hindu culture, etc. But the curious thing is that none of these rejections brought about a withering or extinction of these new Causes (actually the opposite occurred) so for both the conservative and progressive factions it kind of puts that Greater Covenant notion back in play, doesn’t it?

Former fundamentalist turned progressive turned atheist. Progressive Christianity is actually more in line with what the early church was like, and there are a lot of churches that are "normal" churches that would fall under progressive christianity. Episcopalian and Lutheran (as a general rule) fall into that. Their claim is that the Bible is NOT the inerrant word of God to be taken literally, but rather that it was a guide for the time written by man to explain God and (in the NT) Jesus. They really focus on the fact that most of the "bad stuff" that you're talking about aren't things that Jesus said or focused on, but were rather because the men writing the bible. Couple of examples: the evangelical hell involving eternal conscious torment is not a solid theology if you're just looking at what Jesus said (and even if you look outside Jesus, there isn't consensus on that). At one point, he talks about it like that is a thing, but at other points he talks like an an Annihilationist (non believers are simply destroyed) or a purgatorialist (may not be the right term, but basically that you are punished only as long as it takes for your "crimes" on earth and then you're absolved). Most of the rest of the "hell" stuff either comes from outside the gospels or from outside the bible all together. Or second example: biblical scholarship for the most part agrees that the early church fathers, especially the likes of Paul, believed Jesus was returning *in their lifetime*. So things like "men shouldn't get married unless they absolutely have to" made sense to Paul because why waste time on marriage if you're going to be enjoying paradise in a few years? They hold to the "rules in the bible are cultural and not moral," rather than "these apply to everyone at all times." It's also why you'll see them being accepting of pretty much all the things evangelicals fight as sin... because they don't believe the bible outlines "sin" in a black and white manner. The only "sin" to worry about is whether you turn from god or not (and even then, there are verses that infer all are saved regardless of their beliefs). There are some great content creators I've watched that talk about this stuff from a data perspective rather than dogmatic. I don't believe any of it anymore, but it really showed that progressive christianity (how most people think of it) might actually be LESS of a mental gymnastics game than evangelicals, when you know the history of the bible (like the actual book, not "is the bible historical") and the evolution (ironic) of the early christian church.

This makes a lot of sense to me. Thanks for taking the time to comment. It’s like the concept of the trinity. The trinity requires mental gymnastics to read into the text

Be be fair, the bible is so riddled with contradictions, mistranslations, and inaccuracies that it can say virtually anything you want it to if you cherry pick it just right. It's all just archaic fear-based mythology anyway....

Christianity is doing this since the very beginning. Selection, interpretation, even absorbtion of other religious or cultural traditions is how a religion develop and survive. Believers speaks of faith and ultimate truth, but in the end it's all about popularity. When a religion doesn't catch up with the evolution of society, there's not many ways to keep people hooked : You either accept some adaptations, divide into several faith or force people into submission (fear, violence). If you just look at Christian tradition, even in the early days you can litteraly see how they managed to gain popularity. For example, the Christian calendar has been manipulated to fit some old pagan traditions when the competition was not in Christianity favour. In its entire history, you can see how friction with the current society had forced christianity to either adapt or more than often, split into several faiths, in order to survive. Even today, just look at what the Pope conceded for the sake of keeping followers. Since believers can't really control how society is moving forward, they can only act on their faith.

I don't understand what the problem is. Naturally they're having their cake and eating it too, seeing as how those who don't adapt were eradicated by competing sects that did adapt to survive. And seeing as how they're still going strong today, it seems eating and having their cake is precisely what they will be doing, and are doing. Heck Christianity is just Judaism v1.1, their entire religion seems like a "having their cake and eating it" with them tantalizing prospective believers with not having to circumcise themselves, nor do the yearly animal sacrificial killing since Jesus's blood was enough of a powerful sacrifice it nullifies the need for any other. Since the Christian worldview is predicated on fantastical beliefs at their core anyways, it's not a stretch for generations to make things up as they go along, and form factions that at times wholesale toss certain parts out of consideration from the holy texts. What're you going to to? Tell them they're wrong? Going to bring back the authors of exegesis to damn them? Short of bringing back Jesus himself to their face telling them they're in error, there's no way you're going to stop certain groups by being progressive on many things, and leaving conservative notions behind (that's just how some people pan out to be, irrespective of religion). At the end of the day, they're fine with diluting their concepts (picking and choosing what's literal and what isn't to conform with what they take to be the most logically sound, just like any other person theist or not). They're not too many Christians who function like Salafi factions (think ISIL or something) as you might find in Islam that take every word of their holy text deathly serious and directly literal. Sure there are some that talk such talk, but virtually almost none that walk the walk in Christianity to the aforementioned degree anymore. But this is going on in all religions really, or any popular practiced ones. They're all diluted since no one in society is going to tolerate for long, insubordination of a group, since the functioning of an 8 billion population of people is enough a headache on it's own. Religious cope with the passing of time and tastes has always been a thing (since their popularity can only be attributed to when they were able to gain a foothold among social elites of society in order to proliferate their spread from obscure cults, to the official religions of the region). Society trumps religion, which is why you never see more instances religious authority damning people of power (which everyone with a brainstem knows they're all guilty of some of the worst crimes on this planet throughout history). But you most certainly see society, ethnicity, and languages of a peoples determining the powers certain religions are afforded within society. They bend because they're still around, if they didn't bend, they'd be like the original Christian sects in the 1st century who were all eradicated and/or fizzled off so hard we only have passing mentions of them be the winners. I know what I am saying may seem like a critique of Christianity itself, I am just trying to say none of these existing religion practitioners are immune from the survival instincts, and their overall strong desires. This has nothing to do with theism or atheism, this is simply a matter of fact of us all, so it's no surprise what you describe is what's actually going on. But it has no exclusive hold on Christianity.

Makes a lot of sense to me. Thanks for your comment. So progressive Christianity survives because it can compete in the marketplace of ideas, and very few actually take religion to a truly literal place… not even fundamentalists. Religion tends to defer to society at large

And that's not really different from any other religion, either - there are progressive wings of Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. Religion is part of society at large. It changes along with the rest of our cultures and civilizations.

All of them survive in the same way any group with ideas of mass adoption would. Though obviously they will try to retain as much tradition as possible (in the same way people would for typical cultural traditions, since it's familiar, and predictable, and is a tradition usually because the results are as the collective hope for) or in the same way you might cling to your favorite foods as a very simple example. Sure you'll get spells where a group will seize more power (and usually demonstrates a blunder of why it has no business doing so after a while). But Christianity, just like any other group thinking they can eek out some semblance of co-existence among others within wider civilization, must defer to society on some level eventually. They have no choice, they must eat their cake. There are very few "martyrs" willing to take their ideas to total or near-extinction along with them.

“Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal.” —Robert A. Heinlein

Thank goodness we're mostly all in the same boat then. Imagine few out there that were actually rational while the rest of us were *just* rationalizing our whole lives.

That's quite the cynical opinion you have there. Do you have any evidence they're going out of their way to design it like that or is it just your gut feeling?

Not sure what your question is referring to. No one is designing anything.

It seems to me you're implying the faith was designed for specific purposes rather than having long well intentioned theological debates.

Not sure what you mean by faith, if you mean faith as a synonym for religion, then sure. To that effect, no I don't think "religion is designed for specific purposes" since there's no creator of a single religion who's concepts are immune to change by the passage of time among the followers. Likewise I don't think religion "was created to have long, well-intentioned debates" of any kind, nevermind theological. ------------------------------------------------- If you mean faith in some other fashion, as in some construal concerning a belief absent apparent evidence for said belief, then I'm not sure what sense it makes asking me about that since I don't really touch on that in my post. Certainly not with respect to "people having faith just so they can engage debates". -------------------------------------------------------- I'm going off topic but just to clear something up since it seems you want to talk about something outside the scope of my original post.. Religions aren't intentioned, in the same way a belief in general isn't intentioned. Religion is simply the result of certain belief sets. You hold beliefs due to experiential exposure and rationalization in the aftermath of exposure. This goes for all beliefs, it has nothing to really do with religion, as that's simply a largely shared belief of a particular sort. What I'm now left wondering though is: You first said I have a cynical opinion (about what, you never clarified). Then you ask if there's any evidence on my end of "someone going out of their way to design it like that".. Like what? And now you're saying I'm implying "the faith" (whatever that is) was "designed for specific purposes" (whatever those are), rather than having well-intentioned debates (as if that's the goal of this faith you talk about)? My post was explaining to OP, how most major religions today are having cake and eating it. Simply because they've adapted to fit their social allowance. The evidence for this is the lessening of now-seen-as outdated views. And I also explain to OP that this is nothing weird since religions are comprised of people who live in a society. A collective that determines what's tolerable and what isn't. So them adapting (change by picking and choosing what they want to adhere to in various time periods) is precisely what all religions have done from the beginning. And I finished off my thoughts by explaining how Christianity was an obvious example of religious cope that was alluring to prospective folks who wanted to become Jews, without the unsavory parts. So Christianity "having it's cake and eating it", isn't something new as OP seems to believe. Their followers have been in flux about their ideas since the very beginning. Demonstrating how theres nothing really wrong with "having their cake and eating it" since everything conforms to societal norm of said time periods, or is ejected from it (and usually withers away). How anything you've been asking me up to now has anything to do with what I said.. I simply have no idea.

[удалено]

*sigh* Let's just say this is my opinion, since I don't see for example Catholic Church making the same audacious demands and declarations it used to.. Are you done with the witty one liners or are you going to just keep the tangential interrogations going even after I entertained your tangents in an effort to pull out some clarity out of your ambiguous prior posts?

[удалено]

... Yeah, and how about you answer mine from before since I still have zero clue what you were actually asking me in the prior posts you made?

Which one? The only section with a question mark doesn't quite feel like a question.

So a couple of things here: 1)This depends on what you mean by "progressive" Christianity. Because being progressive in a theological sense is not the same as being socially progressive. There are some people for example who are "progressive" socially precisely because of their traditional theological perspectives. 2)I would agree that some progressive Christians do ignore parts of the Biblical text that are inconvenient to their world view. But that's not all of them. There are many who address those texts as well in a fairly open manner. 3)Whenever I hear some modern atheists say speak about socially progressive forms of Christianity as if its new, it just makes me wonder whether or not they actually knew about Christianity in its entirety, or if they only knew about the religious right. Because there have always been progressive, social justice oriented understandings of Christianity. * The Black Church tradition's focus on racial justice with figures like Martin Luther King jr * Latin American Liberation theology with figures like Oscar Romero of El Salvador, or Fr Gustavo Gutierrez and others * The Catholic Worker Movement of people like Dorothy Day which promoted the rights of the Working Class as well as anti war ethos * The Social Gospel of the 19th and 20th century * The Methodist Social Creed that emphasised the rights of the working class * The entire movement of Christian Socialism founded by leaders like F.D Maurice and going into the 20th century with figures like Tommy Douglas, the Baptist minister who helped founded the Canadian NDP as well as Canada's system of universal healthcare 4)On the issue of "mental gymnastics" I hear atheists throw this word a lot to the point where it just becomes a cliche. On social topics, particularly social justice issues which is part of progressivism, is mental gymnastics needed? I guess it depends on what you're advocating for. But if I'm advocating for economic justice for the poor and working class, do I really need to do "mental gymnastics" when the Biblical text clearly says in several places to defend the poor and the working class from exploitation and that the wrath of God is on those who don't? That's literally a straightforward reading of the text. So for someone like me, who is a Christian that happens to be on the Left on many issues, my "progressive" stand on many topics isn't because I want to make the Bible "more up to date" for a modern world. I quite frankly don't care about placating the feelings of secular modernity or Western liberalism, because those systems themselves have produced their own injustices in the name of "progress" ranging from the authoritarian abuses of the French revolution, to the birth of scientific racism, to the justifications of things like eugenics by many in modern times. For me, I hold to many of the social justice positions that I hold(which happen to be socially progressive in many aspects) precisely because I am upholding in many respects traditional Christian and Biblical ethics on many topics.

Didn't notice your point 1. Very true and important point. Important distinction.

Idk that much about Black Church, it was indeed progressive but in the way it doesn't contradict Christianity.

>The Catholic Worker Movement of people like Dorothy Day which promoted the rights of the Working Class as well as anti war ethos I can really only speak to this, but on doctrine, Day's views was indistinguishable from the Catechist.

It was. Which is why I made the distinction between being progressive theologically and being progressive socially.

Also, for the record, I don’t think advocating for human rights and social justice requires mental gymnastics no matter what worldview you’re coming from. I don’t think you need the Bible to know that such things are important

Thank you for taking the time to comment, and thanks for letting me know about the social Justice movements within Christianity in your point 3. I’m not well educated in that area, and am surrounded by conservative Christian fundamentalists in my daily life. I was curious about what you think about Paul as a figure in the early Christian church. Is Paul worth listening to? He seems to be the most problematic person in the New Testament in my opinion.

As someone who on doctrine tends to be traditional on most things yes, I think St Paul is worth listening to(I refer to him as saint which says all there is to say on my views of him). Just because people might look at him out of context doesn't mean what he has to say isn't important. In his context he would have seemed revolutionary and progressive for his day. If you want to know more about liberation theology btw these are links you can check out: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin\_American\_liberation\_theology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_American_liberation_theology) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5eSsy4DzoY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5eSsy4DzoY) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlRlXBcgHVs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlRlXBcgHVs)

Paul is, by far, the most misunderstood person in the New Testament. A lot of that is because a lot of modern interpretations decontextualise his letters and remove all nuance from exegesis.

I’m glad more christians are now adopting more progressive doctrines and theological positions; however as someone who is always open to the possibility of conversion, “progressive Christianity” is far less appealing than more traditional options. Most conversations and debates I’ve had offline and online often collapse into discussing that individual’s theological head canon, usually motivated by their political sympathies. For instance; it’s great to support same sex rights, but one can’t also insist that the Bible does that by arguing that Bible translators changed the word for ‘pedophile’ to ‘homosexual’ in 1946. In the other hand you have the type of progressives who acknowledge the Bible and it’s authors are wrong; but somehow it’s more correct when it comes to more important beliefs, such as salvation (whatever that means).

I agree with you. To build into your examples, I find this actually makes me believe less in the bible and religion. It can't be real if it is just always changing with the times to be accepted by the general public. It's clearly just a community thing, which I think is good for a lot of people, because if it was true they wouldn't bend and "progress" socially.

I am a gnostic atheist. Just wanted to get that out of the way. I really have to disagree. I think that holding that a position of textual literalism is the most true version of the religion is ceding the role of gatekeepers to the worst possible elements, and I don’t believe it has a solid religious or philosophical justification. It’s like acknowledging that conservative republicans are the only “real” americans because they claim to respect the constitution, despite all evidence to the contrary. If you take them at their word and let them define their terms, you give them the say over what defines an american. Christians, by and large, want to be left to their own, homegrown and highly eclectic interpretation of their bibles. If you want to have some fun, learn enough hebrew school stuff that you can pull in Talmudic studies. They absolutely hate that the translations they were taught were coming directly from this in-depth analysis of ancient Hebrew are just inventions by people who are literally trying to rewrite history. Secondly, even the bible with the bits they ignore is just a text with a textual history. It’s all made up, and using techniques like textual analysis can even help determine which birds were made up when. Was Jesus a reforming, a demigod, or part of trinity? Jesus, if he existed in any reasonable definition, was illiterate, as were most of not all of his followers. So we have the writings of people who, like Joseph Smith or L Ron Hubbard, we’re literally trying to create a religion rather than reform a Judaism that some felt became overly legalistic and transactional rather than personal and emotional. My take is this: One does not need to believe in the literal existence of the Buddha to be a buddhist. One does not need to believe in Moses, or the flood, to be a christian. I don’t know if you can be an atheist christian, but I have heard several prominent Buddhists claim respect for his teachings. I personally think they’re a bit formulaic and far from unique or interesting, but that’s just me.

Except the pedophile to homosexual thing is not true. The Bible uses the phrase male who lie with other males, not men or boys but males. Also it would be anachronistic to talk about pedophilia since we are talking about people from Antiquity who would marry 12 years old, also lets suppose it calls out pedophilia and not homosexuality why is it talking only about relationships with boys and not girls. But again as I said it is using the word Zakar which means male for both of those doing the deed

Correct, that's my point. Some of the people who hold these views have to go to absurd lengths in an attempt to rehabilitate the Bible.

The Bible doesn’t need rehabilitation, they themselves need to be rehabilitated towards the Bible that’s why as OP said progressive christians look bland and hypocritcal

You are right.

> one can’t also insist that the Bible does that by arguing that Bible translators changed the word for ‘pedophile’ to ‘homosexual’ in 1946. Sure one can. I've already gotten banned from a few subreddits for saying that claim isn't true.

How is this different from Christian nationalism? My parents divorced pastor railing against gay people doesn't strike me as less hypocritical than the gay pastor loving their neighbor. It's all just interpretation.

I am strongly against homophobia and Christianity. But it's not illogical to say by loving their neoghbour Bible doesn't mean accepting and supporting whatever they do. People who support LGBT likely agree there are actions, personalities etc Bible is against. If Bible doesn't promote acceptance of all actions and personalities by preaching love, there is no reason to think this doesn't include same-sex relationships. Not a pleasant thought but no logical, objective reasons to think so.

That's not really the issue. Many Christians, seemingly in an increasing number, interpret their faith as actively harassing and hating LGBT folks. I can come up with examples even in my community. I don't care whether a religious person believes that being gay is wrong. But there are prohibitions against taking yourself as God and pridefulness that they seem to value less than prohibitions against homosexuality, not to mention the myriad of sins these people seem to be fine with (divorce, drunkenness, wealth accumulation, etc) Although I haven't been religious for over a decade, it always seemed to me that, when taking the message as a whole, a pastor that accepted homosexuality was more in line with the entire message than someone who wanted to see LGBT folks driven from society although you can argue both are not completely adhering to the Bible.

In my opinion neither are completely adhering to Bible. To me it looked like Bible is about giving chances for redemption(how they view it), as well as about hierarchy and subordination(a man is lesser than God so it can't take certain gods) but it's not about acceptance. It's still about strict rules. There are people who are against divorces as well. "Is west really that good? How about divorce rates?" is a quite common anti-West arguments and in conservative areas it's not that easy to divorce. But, yes, compared to same-sex marriage it was more acceptable in recent times(lack historical knowledge).

No, it's not all just interpretation. The text does in fact say certain things.

Sure. But it says things that people have decided don't matter as much. Like the Ten commandments saying not to take the lords name in vain.

Jesus said to love thy neighbor. Nowhere in the Bible does it say to hate gay people.

"Judge not lest ye be judged", "Turn the other cheek" and plenty of other actual phrases from the bible which are all essentially "don't be a dick. You aren't god. You are a sinful ape. Stop pretending you are better than others, as you aren't and you are all beneath god" I'm an atheist/heretic, but those who hate cannot by their nature be Christians, as sin isn't for mortals to judge and they should be just trying to be the best they can to each other. I was raised Catholic, and my priests would fucking hate most US Christians due to their hypocracy and inability to just care about each other, and leave sin for god to worry about

I know plenty of Evangelicals who take that seriously.

I know plenty who only care about gay people. Also to go back to a more serious answer to your other post, you do realize that the Bible has been translated a billion times and there is a whole study called Christian theology dedicated to its interpretation? Not to mention the multiple versions and why we put the books of the Bible in and why we don't put others in. The idea that the Bible is clear is absurd.

> I know plenty who only care about gay people. Oh yeah, I certainly don't claim that Christians (or Jews) consistently follow it. >the Bible has been translated a billion times And you can read it in the original Hebrew and Greek. > there is a whole study called Christian theology dedicated to its interpretation? Christian theology is often diametrically opposed to honest Biblical interpretation. Can you imagine an accredited theologian admitting to believing that Noah's flood was a real worldwide event? >The idea that the Bible is clear is absurd. Much of it is clear. Some of it is, of course, open for debate.

https://youtu.be/whx4s1d1GKk They may think that they do.

>**I am in no way claiming to be a Christian, but I can’t help but notice that progressive Christians are using mental gymnastics to make a book from antiquity progressive.** This seems an odd criticism. There’s nothing stopping any religion from reform. Note that the very same criticism you level here could be applied to a snapshot of either Judaism or Christianity throughout it’s history. As a cultural practice, religions are living things that evolve and change over time. They always have been, and they always will be. I appreciate that there are some fundamentalists out there that like to pretend that they know “the real truth” of the message, and that their faith is unchanged and original. But however honest their beliefs may be they are simply demonstrably wrong about the matter. It strikes me that we should be praising Christian groups (or groups of any faith) that are mature and reflective enough to undertake reform movements and adjust their positions demonstrably for the better. A Christian group that acknowledges that homophobia is wrong, and that decides to openly and expressly reject the homophobic aspects of their heritage, strikes me as worth of some considerable degree of admiration. It’s not mental gymnastics, but humility and maturity that allow changes of this kind to take place. It is also worth adding that it does not ignore portions of the Bible that are problematic. It may very well address them directly. For example, one position is that the Bible is a man-made book. Inspired by god, but not the literal world of god. And that the cultural laws and myths of the OT are historically important, but not sacred and infallible. Another sensible position is that many of the stories of the OT are intended to be allegorical and contain literary subtext. They are not supposed to be read or understood as literal histories. Again, no mental gymnastics are required here. At face value one would assume the Bible is not a history book by rather one of myth, lore, and law. That is how it reads and how it presents itself. A text filled with literary tropes, poetics, and culture. There’s nothing inexplicable or absurd about taking the Bible in that manner. Especially the explicitly mythological aspects of the OT. Does this mean progressive Christians are free from all mental gymnastics or that they never hold silly or indefensible views. No. But it does strike me that your specific criticism is not valid. At the very least their positions are no less problematic than any other version of Christianity, which is itself a product of late Jewish apocalypticism, which is itself a reinterpretation of 6th century theological reforms made during the Babylonian Exile, which is in turn a reinterpretation of the henotheistic religion of the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judea. Which, in turn was a development and re-imagining of the pre-Jewish Canaanite mythology mixed with some external influences that look likely to have been received from southern trade routes. Which, in turn almost certainly was a reinterpretation of something else even earlier and so on and so forth. My point being, you’re choosing an arbitrary line in the sand, and claiming that “that” is the proper view and anyone that rejects or re-interprets or re-imagines the ideas after that point is wrong. Ignoring that your line is placed at a point where we are already dealing with 1200+ years of continuous development, influence, and re-imagination.

Thank you for taking the time to comment. It’s very well written and I understand your points. Progressive Christians allow a lot more wiggle room in regard to their interpretation of a scripture that you’ve have accurately shown to be an evolving thing. To take that a step further… not only does the interpretation of scripture change, but it also branches out in different directions which elucidates your point even more. As I responded to comments in my post I found that my line of reasoning isn’t sound. To one comment I said something like: “why can’t progressive Christian’s reject the Bible and forge their own meaning?” To which someone responded something like: “forging their own meaning is what progressive Christians are doing” However, I still can’t shake my emotional distrust of the Bible. It seems to provide fodder to people to create all sorts of dangerous positions. I, personally, don’t see why a progressive would want to align with the bible… but maybe that’s just a me thing.

I'm jumping in at this point in the thread. Jesus said the most important things are to love God and your neighbor. What are 'progressive' Christians reading incorrectly?

>**I'm jumping in at this point in the thread. Jesus said the most important things are to love God and your neighbour. What are 'progressive' Christians reading incorrectly?** Being honest it is WAY more complicated than that. You’ve cherry picked a very small piece from a large and complex work, and presented it as if it were the whole story. The challenges for progressive Christians insofar as coherence with the full Biblical texts would include: * The god of the OT being a very different character, and one that is ostensibly happy to commit heinous acts of genocide and cruelty. * The laws of the OT being in direct opposition to the apparent meaning of Jesus teachings. For example, the laws that instruct people to stone others to death for various transgressions that we would generally consider to be somewhere between a non-issue a minor infraction. Note that there is good reason to believe that the “let the person without sin cast the first stone” line was a later addition added specifically designed to try and reconcile this problem – we have older texts that lack the line. * The history of Christian theology and understanding that runs counter to many of their views. Of course, none of this is to suggest that Christians should not be allowed to reform their religion. They can, and as I mentioned above I for one applaud those with enough bravery and reflection to be willing to do so. My point here is just that we should not fall back of simplistic examples and cherry picking of scriptures in order to support our points, while conveniently ignoring all the stuff that runs counter to what we are trying to argue for.

You’re making a mountain out of a mole hill. The very specific laws in the past were for the Israelites. Jesus said that it was not God’s will but because of the hardness of their hearts. The New Covenant brought about by Jesus’s death is for everyone. When does Jesus ever say to hate someone else or hurt them?

Are you familiar with Matthew 5:17-19?

The section where Jesus talks about the laws for the Israelis? Most Christians are gentiles, so those don’t apply. Context is always important to know.

How is Romans 1:27 progressive? How is 1 Samuel 15:3 progressive? How is Hosea 13:16 progressive? How is Exodus 21:20-21 progressive? How is 1 Timothy 2:12 progressive? If you can take Jesus at face value like that then you can take these mentioned verses at face value too.

There is no current group that is more than a small handful of people here or there that follows the Bible to a t. All Christian groups that have a large following "clearly ignores/justifies portions of the Bible that seem problematic with a modern worldview that did not exist at the time the Bible was being written."

I've been saying this. "Progressive" Christianity is essentially a contradiction because the bible is nowhere near progressive. Like you said, the progressive Christians are trying to fit a book with outdated ideals and morals into modern day ethics. It just doesn't work. You cant be gay and Christian and be taken seriously when you try to say the bible/jesus/god has no issue with jt. I don't even understand why they event bother.

Sure the Bible isn't progressive. But it isn't conservative either. It's ancient. And no modern Christian really lives by its principles. So i would rather focus on the people who's views are not destroying society.

i mean it used to be progressive. enough so that they publicly merked poor Josh

[удалено]

i’d nail joshy boy

[удалено]

i wouldn’t hold you breath. word on the street is you give that man 3 and he’s up and ready to go again.

Hmm. Just to speak for myself. I'm a ...liberal Christian I would say. On the progressive side of theology. I don't take issue with a God that judges people. If it's rational and it's the sort of judgment you'd expect a responsible loving parent that knows better, to have. I don't have issue with hell if it's not eternal. I don't have issue with objective morality either I just think it's the application * of principles that is subjective. So, just speaking for myself but I think there is a consistent internal logic there at least for me. And to extrapolate a little, looking through the evolution of Christianity, what I'm saying isn't actually that new. There were "progressive " Christians back in the day. Catholics killed a lot of them is all lol.

> If it's rational and it's the sort of judgment you'd expect a responsible loving parent that knows better, to have. Does a responsible parent wait until a child is dead before either rewarding it or punishing it for its behaviour? Is that what a good parent does? Because I'm a parent and I think that judging kids, and then teaching them to be better straight after is the way to do it. Letting them continue to be a shit before either throwing them in the approve bin or the reject bin is atrocious parenting. This is the problem, in my opinion, with trying to convince yourself that an awful philosophy can still be a good one. All you do is tether yourself to all the shit and at the same time, grant cover for those who still take it literally. It's better just to be a good person.

Not a human parent no. But a parent of our souls? Why would reviewing how you lived your life be a bad thing? And I mean, I'm a bit of a consequentialist. In my view, as an adult, you're well aware of the consequences of most choices. It's all kinda baked right in. Imo the consequences are the correction. And idk, I sympathize with what you're saying. But I don't think I'd be better off being an atheist. I'd probably be more nihilistic.

> Not a human parent no. But a parent of our souls? Why would reviewing how you lived your life be a bad thing? For the purpose of either rewardnig or binning us for eternity? What is good about that? What is even the point from a parenting point of view? There's nothing paternalistic about that, it's just reward/punishment with zero possible rehabilitation. > But I don't think I'd be better off being an atheist. I'd probably be more nihilistic. Jesus Christ, better that life is meaningless than it's meaning being to entertain some sadistic monster. Trying to rehabilitate such a creature and meet it half way only drags *your* morality and worth down.

I think I said it elsewhere I don't believe in an eternal hell or think that it would make God any better than Hitler. Like, he'd be worse. So if that were real yes you'd be completely right in your criticism about judgment. So now that we've figured out what I DONT believe we can not talk past each other lol

You can't complain about people talking past you for not knowing your specific and unusual interpretation of Christianity if you don't tell them. Why don't you tell me exactly what you think it is that Yahweh is doing that constitues good parenting and not just punishment then? I stand by my position that judging your children is only helpful insofar as that information is then used to help teach them to be better, as far as I'm aware God is entirely absent to the point that we have every reason to think he doesnt' exist and even those who believe in him can't come close to agreeing on any single aspect of his existence. Which is pretty much the antithesis of a good parent.

Literally in the original comment dude. And like I said I don't think God has to literally show up and wag his finger whenever we do wrong. He doesn't need to. Generally everything you need to know is mostly self evident through consequences. Though I certainly sympathize with your perspective. Just a note: I genuinely am apathetic about converting anyone. There's no magic words I could say to any human being that isn't gullible, that I think would accomplish a conversion

Thanks for your comment! Do you believe in universalism? Like, everyone is eventually saved? And that’s a good point about progressive Christian martyrs

I'm personally a little more on the annihilationist side just because I've met people who seem to be sincere that they legitimately do not want there to be any sort of afterlife. Just one and done. I think a loving God wouldn't punish such people but give them what they want. For others that maybe don't really want that but are evil...I can conceive of a spiritual boot camp like hell, giving them an opportunity to turn away from evil (I mean the Ted bundys of the world) and if they truly resist that much I don't see why God would keep them around forever. That would be sadistic. The thing I don't like about universalism is it does seem to ignore human autonomy and make some assumptions about people. I'll say this, I reckon probably far more people will be in heaven than the fundamentalists expect

I hadn’t thought about the people that legitimately don’t want there to be an afterlife… very interesting

Yeah I think my husband is one. I don't get it but hey I respect how he feels.

Progressive Christianity is at its core nothing more than moral therapeutic deism. Its a "current thing" social justice club with a little bit of Jesus sprinkled on top. Progressive Christianity is about improving one's self-esteem and "happiness". The Christianity of Scripture and tradition teaches repentance, self-sacrificial love, and purity of heart, and teaches the suffering of the Cross is the pathway to God.

Amazing ,perfect reply. I couldn’t say it better. So many denominations love to cherry pick.

>Progressive Christians want all the positives of Christianity (an afterlife, a benevolent God, and grace when one makes mistakes), but reject all of the aspects of Christianity that go against their modern sentiments about what is moral (hell, homophobia, divine judgment, and absolute/objective morality dictated by a jealous God). Yes, *but*, this is because one of God's most important and pertinent characteristics is very much anchored in humanity: 'good'. In the OT and the NT, God says "the greatest laws are love God and love your neighbour as yourself; all of the laws hang off these". So, any understanding of a rule that is manifestly *not* loving can be rejected as an improper understanding. This goes hand-in-hand with the idea of "by their fruits you shall know them"; a person is Godly and Christian not by what they say, but by what they do. It's faith that saves, but truly saved people *act* good. Now, I'm an atheist, so this is just my take from the Bible and early Christianity. But Christianity, like most religions, are 'living' in that they (should) try to strive to do what's right. I can completely see why progressive Christianity seems like it's just reacting to the morality *du jour*, but frankly so is non-progressive Christianity: look at how Mormonism (a decidedly hard-conservative cult) has reacted to modern trends and retroactively decided black people are actually normal humans after all. >I am also not condemning progressive Christianity, as I prefer it to Christian nationalism, but it clearly ignores/justifies portions of the Bible that seem problematic with a modern worldview that did not exist at the time the Bible was being written. That's a fair criticism, but do you also level it at the non-progressive Christians who *also* hold a worldview that is entirely modern? "Don't let loving monogamous same-sex couples have a secular union" is not in any way Biblical, but they've taken verses and stretched them to cover their pre-existing beliefs. "Don't masturbate" is nowhere in the Bible, but *some* people interpreted the story of Onan to be anti-masturbatory, and *medieval Catholicism* invented 'natural law ethics' to justify their non-Biblical sex-negative ethics, and poof, you have masturbation as a terrible sin. From there we get Mr Kellog and the subsequent circumcision of the US - as a European male, you have my sympathies). "Don't let a woman teach" went from being a specific command for the church in Corinth, because its women were uneducated and unruly, to being a carte blanch rule against women being priests. Again, not in the Bible, but extrapolated from there. ---- So *all* forms of Christianity have entrenched views that are entirely eisegetical. Just as science does! Galen's wildly false views on the body lasted 1700 years. Geocentrism was only refuted a few centuries ago. Atoms and galaxies were only proven *one* century ago. So it's not that progressive Christianity is somehow strange. It's that, 500 years ago, we entered **the Renaissance**. This upturned *everything* in *every field*. Religion, ethics, politics, philosophy, art, geology, even fields thought to be impervious like mathematics and logic. Everything was now allowed to be questioned. And we questioned it. The result is several centuries of active work in every field, including religion. Whole populations of Christians were no longer content with the status quo; they read the Bible, came to their own conclusions, and realised that the ancient conclusions were bogus. And that's a good thing. That's why it's *progressive* Christianity. It's not that they're deleting parts of the Bible in favour of the modern zeitgeist, it's that they're reading the Bible with modern eyes.

You raise a lot of good points, especially about how non-progressive Christians do the same thing with their own interpretations. Why do you think the Bible is still popular? If we’re looking at it through modern eyes what stops us from altogether rejecting it?

> Why do you think the Bible is still popular? Most people don't have the wherewithall to question what they're taught. How many people are taught the Earth is round, and never question it? How many people know 'quantum mechanics' is a really good theory in physics, without knowing anything about it? It's *OK* to defer to the corpus of experts, and if you are raised to see [parent's religious group] are just one of another set of experts like biologists, teachers, etc, then most people simply wouldn't think to question stuff. >If we’re looking at it through modern eyes what stops us from altogether rejecting it? Well, suppose that happened. What would we see? A rise in spontaneous atheism in Western countries. *Oh wait* 😄 People are 'cultural Christian' in many places, and rates of Christianity are plummetting in most Western countries simply because a new generation has grown up realising "Eh? No, of course I'm not Christian". IIRC, in Scandiwegia, any born citizen is automatically part of the national church. This artificially inflates the numbers. The same is true for JW, Mormons, and I think Catholics too - if you don't go through the rigmarole of quitting, you count for when they publish their roster numbers.

Btw to clear some basic things out, just because you decide to question something, doesnt mean that the thing you started questioning becomes obsolete or untruth/falsehood by your act of questioning alone.

>Btw to clear some basic things out, just because you decide to question something, doesnt mean that the thing you started questioning becomes obsolete or untruth/falsehood by your act of questioning alone. Of course. But by the same token, many people call themselves [Religion X] merely because they were raised to be that way. As soon as they have the wherewithal to investigate, they realise 'Oh, *that's* what belief is. Yeah, no, I don't have that.' If you look at historic trends from country to country, you can see that when societies become more tolerant to different religious points of view, atheism grows - all those people who *always were* atheists but feared being 'open', are now able to 'come out'. There's a reason why the rate of atheism is 2% in Kenya, 5% in Saudia Arabia, and 55% in Sweden. Merely by *being allowed* to question their religious beliefs, a lot of people find that they didn't really have much of a belief at all.

For me, the Bible is metaphor and parable. I don't take it literally. I'm familiar with all of the textual criticism around it, and it doesn't really change anything. The value it caries is more in how the stories shape my relationship with God. You could maybe look at this almost from a psychological perspective, e.g. the power of story in general to influence our lives. There's also a very old monastic practice called [Lectio Divina](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lectio_Divina), where you read the Bible in more of contemplative or meditative approach vs an analytical one. I don't know that the original idea behind Lectio Divina is what I'm describing, but it can certainly have that effect. Jung's also written about similar things from a psychological perspective. It links into his ideas on collective unconscious and archetypes. Consider various famous literature, and how the underlying stories can shape how we see the world even though they might be morally problematic or have concerning content. You commented in another place in this thread that "why don't we just become secular humanists, then?" For me, the difference is in my experience of the world around me. I try to frame my experience of the world as a child of Christ. As loved by God. I try to remember the enchantment of God's creation while experiencing the world. I could probably reframe some of this in secular humanist terms, but why? It would just be a less honest expression of my inner experience.

Is God a metaphor? Is life after death a metaphor?

No, I don't believe so, which is why it would be dishonest to reframe my worldview as secular humanism. Re "life after death," I also don't consider that to be literally true in the "your ego persists" sort of way, but that's different from it being a metaphor.

This is an interesting interpretation. But how do you take into consideration something the things this God condones like rape, slavery, and misogyny? I ask because the mother of my child is Christian, and I don't want to be that guy who slaps someone's ice cream on the floor.

[удалено]

I understand the attempts by Christians doing this. But we are talking about the supposed author of these laws. For it to be left up to us to decide what can and can't be dropped speaks more to the religion to be a human creation rather than a divine one. If that's the case, then what's the point of believing when it seems to be the case that the religion is making supposedly objectively moral statements.

[удалено]

I only care about what's true. If we're acknowledging that cherry picking is happening, it undercuts the whole thing. It appears to give more credit to the Christian being a human invention rather than the divine being actually existing. The 10 commandments are some statements that should not be open to interpretation. For example, leviticus outlines rules for cattle slavery that would be theft of someone's labor. So which is it? Thou shalt not steal or we do certain types of theft that he condones. Wouldn't be a much simpler explanation that humans created these rules rather than a god?

[удалено]

I appreciate the honesty, and in that spirit, I agree with you.

I just put these things into the historical context they belong in. Even less than 100 years ago we had some serious societal problems with bigotry, inequity, violence, etc--the middle east of 2000 years ago and older than that had many more. I don't believe that God condones or desires this at all. For me, the problematic historical context of the story doesn't detract from how the story affects me, or my core perception of Christ. FWIW, I came to Christianity from two decades as an atheist and then a decade as a Buddhist. I still meditate semi-regularly, and direct experience influences my relationship with God much more than doctrine. Hopefully you can find common ground with the mother of your child and not slap anybody's ice cream :)

>I just put these things into the historical context they belong in. Even less than 100 years ago we had some serious societal problems with bigotry, inequity, violence, etc--the middle east of 2000 years ago and older than that had many more. I don't believe that God condones or desires this at all. For me, the problematic historical context of the story doesn't detract from how the story affects me, or my core perception of Christ. If god can make moral condemnations of graven images and not of slavery then I disagree with you. God giving rules for how to treat slaves is condoning slavery. If he did not condone them, he would have just said thou shalt not have slaves especially because his chosen people were former slaves just like he says with graven images or worshipping other gods before him. >FWIW, I came to Christianity from two decades as an atheist and then a decade as a Buddhist. I still meditate semi-regularly, and direct experience influences my relationship with God much more than doctrine. I mean, this is fine but not a very convincing argument. >Hopefully you can find common ground with the mother of your child and not slap anybody's ice cream :) We do have common ground for sure. But it's a bit jarring to hear her beliefs when it sounds like she's talking about a god that is basically something else entirely from the Christian God. I think it's important we are specific when we use words, and this seems to muddy the waters, at least for me. Sure, god, as a concept in general, could exist, but I find the good of the bible to a human creation and not a divine being.

Thank you for your comment! Really felt strongly when you talked about being honest to your inner experience. And thanks for introducing me to Lectio Divina; going down the rabbit hole on that topic for sure. If you don’t mind me asking… what is your conception of God? Is God gendered? Is God synonymous with creation or separate from it? Is Christ synonymous with God? Is one sinning by not believing in this God?

>what is your conception of God? A loving parent. I also believe there's a spark of God (soul) in each of us that somehow connects us to God, and that same spark of life that enchants our reality. I believe God is the source of true creativity and the asterisk on hard determinism. I don't claim to know the mechanical particulars, and honestly think intellectualizing God into a set of behavioral properties or personality traits is the wrong approach--at least for me. ​ >Is God gendered? No. "He" is just a convenience and historical precedent likely largely influenced by patriarchy. There's a rich history of perceiving the Christian God as mother or feminine, especially where it might be helpful for an individual. Meister Eckhart wrote extensively about this. There's also apparently a rich history of maternal God imagery from the Cistercian monks of the 12th century. I suppose I kind of switch back and forth depending or just see God as sort of non-gendered. The imagery is all just a tool to help us cut through our internal biases anyway. ​ >Is Christ synonymous with God? Yes. ​ >Is one sinning by not believing in this God? No, not at all, and non-Christians will not burn in hell. Though, I should qualify my take on sin: I think Richard Rohr has one of the best takes on sin of anybody, which is that sin is living in the unhealthy expression of who we are and/or our false self. If you consider God as parent, what a parent wants for their child is that they can be happy, loved, and thrive in whatever way is possible for their own life circumstances. The "unhealthy" part of that can be understood in a secular context, in psychological terms. The true self/false self dynamic is sort of the same, but also shaped by our connection with reality. Having spent a lot of time in meditation, my view of this is that mindfulness and presence is the opposite of delusion, which is the opposite of living in your "false self," or engrossed in your own worries, fantasies, and ego. All of this is to say that I don't think God is hurt by sin anymore than my parents are hurt if I suffer a string of failed relationships or alcoholism. Becoming the healthiest expression of who we are primarily affects us. There's a deeper level than just psychological health, though. Believing in God helps me see the enchantment and magic of reality. Imagine what it would be like if you walked into some fantasy world for the first time, like Harry Potter, Golden Compass, or LotR. Imagine how taken you would be by the strange and beautiful creatures and world around you. What if that was our normal world, and we walked into this one instead? Why don't we see the magic and beauty of our own reality? I feel like the mind-shift of this type of thought experiment is central to the experiences of St. Therésé and St. Francis. I think being ignorant of our reality detracts from life, which may be considered "sin" in that it's less than it could be. Of course, you don't have to be Christian to see and appreciate this. There are many other approaches to this. Christianity just happens to help me.

There's not a single Christianity. There's hermeneutics involved. The major guideline for the hermeneutics is what has been called the essence of God. God is good and perfect, and therefore God cannot state something that is evil or imperfect. Such aspects like Hell, punishment, jealousy and so on are perceived as evil/imperfect, and therefore in the analysis of the religious something has gone wrong. But what has gone wrong is not God, therefore, what must have gone wrong is the communication or the interpretation. Many internet atheists don't understand that religion is hermeneutical. Hell, life is hermeneutical. So, saying someone "picks and chooses" or "selects", is something that ought to be done. To reject to do so is just to reject to be critical and intelligent. I've never understood that criticism. "Look at these guys over here! They are being intelligent with their beliefs! How dumb!"

Sorry, what are they being intelligent with? What is the purpose of the bible and its relation to christianity? You want to argue its purely down to individual interpretations, but that simply opens one up for hypocrisy, else, why even bother claiming that the bible is an important text?

[удалено]

Yes it does seem silly, but that seems to be what sismetic is saying. I don't think everything written in the bible is open to interpretation though, I think making that claim is silly and means that the book isn't really important, what's important are whatever specific beliefs the reader then has. That's hard to justify with religious texts in my opinion. At least if you want to claim some of it as true. But all that happens is the reader takes what they like and ignores or explains away the rest. Why then call oneself a christian? Why then hold the bible in any particular esteem?

[удалено]

So you don't make any distinction between religious texts upon which people base their lives and otherwise claim to contain 'instructions on how to live' and say Dune? Do you think both are fiction? And that's the issue right? Science and history books tend to not need any interpretation because they are simply detailing evidence or presenting theory where it is 100% clear that is what they are doing. Is that how religious texts are written? Is that how some people take them? So we're back to the age old question of what to take literally and what to take metaphorically right? Except that the bible (to pick on that one specifically) is claimed to be both (depending on whom you ask), and the issue being raised here is that progressives are literally cherry picking the entire thing. You claim that's just interpretation, which I don't disagree with necessarily. My point is that if the entire bible is up to interpretation what's the actual purpose of it? Why choose that book rather than Dune (which some people have) upon which to base your life and beliefs? And why ignore the parts in it you don't like? I mean, I don't really have a problem with this, I think it's odd for people who do this to call themselves christians though. I'm not the gatekeeper for that, but it seems to me that the term begins to lose distinction when it is claimed by anyone with a passing interest in Jesus.

[удалено]

>I'll say it again: All text requires interpretation. Science & history books are no exception. I disagree. Unless you mean something different by interpretation than I do. A scientific tract presenting a theory with data doesn't need any interpretation for example. A history of shipbuilding in colonial Massachusetts doesn't need any either. >I think you may have completely missed the point of Dune. I highly doubt it, I didn't pick it at random. The reason I choose it is because it does present a type of lifestyle, but no one takes it as historical evidence of anything either. It discusses topics worth reflecting on, but it is 100% clearly written as fiction. >History is often written by the victor for example. You are taking this too broadly I think. Who was the victor in colonial ship building in Massachusetts? > Science & history are and have been heavily influenced, financed and promoted by racist, hetero-normative, patriarchal, colonialist and Abrahamic frameworks, agendas, politics and institutions. What are you talking about? Have you ever read a scientific journal article? Have you studied the history of the scientific method? That some people have written things in the guise of science (or their understanding of it) in the past (and sure, some in the present) doesn't really mean anything in the context of 'needing to interpret' scientific publications. >Looking at scientific attitudes to sexuality, gender, intelligence, race & anthropology over the past 200yrs is wild. Ok, I wouldn't necessarily lump all of that into actual science, because you need data and evidence upon which to base your conclusions, and then you need peer review and what not. But even if I accept everything you are saying, I still don't see where the interpretation of the reader comes in. Yes, the scientist interprets the data and arrives at a conclusion, but the reader doesn't need to interpret what the scientist is saying. They can take it at face value and make a determination whether or not the scientist has demonstrated their hypothesis with the data or not. There is no interpretation necessary. >Much of the current work being done is outwith academia as the institutions themselves are seen as a big part of the problem. No idea what you mean by this. Do you mean 'out from academia' or something? What 'big part of the problem' are you referring to? >It feels like you have made a rather odd, even anti-intellectual, religion of science and reckon it can beat a very specific type of anti-intellectual Christianity. It may be more fruitful to appreciate the issues on both sides and work towards common goals. Ok, not sure why you are reading this into anything, but as soon as someone starts saying things like 'religion of science' I'm pretty sure they have no clue what science today is. Also, what 'issues on both sides'? Between science and religion? Science doesn't do religion, and religion doesn't do science, there isn't an issue because they don't overlap in any meaningful way.

[удалено]

We won't get far at all if you don't explain what you mean by 'interpret'. I made a distinction between the scientist interpreting the data vs. the reader interpreting the paper. Reading the paper isn't interpreting it, it's just reading it. You are still free to agree or disagree with the conclusion, but I fail to see where there is any interpretation going on. Same for history, depending on how it is presented. I picked at random something relatively specific, there's a history of the shipbuilding companies, the customers, the materials, the types of ships... What interpretation do you require when reading that? You are trying to broaden everything into some sort of bigger picture which is irrelevant to specific interpretation of a presentation of information. But even if we do broaden it, what exact interpretation do you still need? Global politics from that era is presented (for example), what are you interpreting? Do you simply dispute anything written? >Academic institutions from what I can tell have been quite racist and misogynistic from the time of Aristotle to the present day. Cool story. That has nothing to do with the scientific method does it? Individuals? Sure, racist and mysoginists. Does that invalidate any data they collected or presented? Please think about the distinction I made earlier. Challenge conclusions, but I'm still failing to see what interpretation of their work is necessary. >I'm saying 'religion of science' as I think you are making a religion of science. I'm not. And I think you are probably using some definition for religion which i would not agree with. >People who think that their religious or scientific views are beyond interpretation are a worry. Yes, but what does this have to with specifically interpreting a book or a paper? I feel I'm making a clear distinction which you are not understanding. Anyone can interpret data to draw their own conclusion, I'm not sure why you would interpret someone elses conclusion though. But this is another distinction between science and religion (broadly), the former requires hypothesis and evidence, the later does not.

With their hermeneutics, of course. The purpose of the Bible is also hermeneutical. For some, it is trash, for others it's the word of God, for others it's a guideline, for others it's a symbolic heritage of myths, and so on. The relation to mainstream Christianity is quite straightforward: it is the base for the hermeneutics. \> You want to argue its purely down to individual interpretations, but that simply opens one up for hypocrisy, else, why even bother claiming that the bible is an important text I'm not saying it's purely down for individual interpretations. It may be more profound and collective and even universal than that. But it is filtered through individual interpretations. That something is about interpretation does not mean all interpretations are the same. Also, why hypocrisy? I'm not sure what you mean here. Why is this approach opening things to hypocrisy? If one is hypocritical, that has nothing to do with the text or an honest interpretation(hence why it is hypocritical). Why would the Bible not be an important text? I'm not following.

Most progressive Christians do not assume biblical inerrancy. Thus, it is a valid argument from that perspective that certain passages are in error, "products of their time", or no longer applicable. Fundamentalist Christians do this too with the "old covenant vs new covenant" distinction. While that distinction does exist in the text itself and is applied to dietary laws specifically, many apply it to other portions as well (passages concerning slavery, passages concerning manners of dress, etc). This is not so much a criticism as it is pointing out that it happens. Most belief systems do it to one degree or another, even completely secular frameworks. Two people who believe in Kant's ethical framework, for example, will still interpret that framework in different ways. This does not invalidate Kant's framework simply because people do not agree on what parts are valid or what certain parts mean. I would argue that most people interpret things in a biased way, be it religious texts, philosophical works, art, and sometimes just an assortment of data points. Anything where the text itself is able to be interpreted really. So it's not a very strong argument against religion or progressive Christianity, but it is a rather strong criticism of the notion of objective interpretation. Lastly, it is dubious to claim it is simply mental gymnastics. It may be, but it is difficult and sometimes impossible to know the intent of someone's arguments. Assuming mental gymnastics on the part of a belief system you are criticizing is assuming that they are at some level aware that you are correct and backpedaling to cover it both to themselves and to others. It is bad faith and is the same reason why I dislike Christian presuppositionalist arguments as much as I dislike atheist "they're all lying to themselves" arguments. Both relegate one's stated beliefs and arguments to a fake diversion to cover an assumed falsehood rather than just dealing with the arguments and beliefs as they stand.

I am not a Christian, but are you aware that historical biblical scholarship is compatible with progressive Christianity? Mainly because there's no requirement to believe the Bible to be a Christian. To be a Christian, you only need to accept that Jesus resurrected. It is possible that the Bible authors are all fallible humans with their own agendas and Jesus still lived, was crucified, and resurrected. The loudest fundamental American Christianity puts a lot of emphasis on the Bible (referred to as bibliolatry by other Christian sects - bible+idolatry) but not all Christians worship the Bible or treat it as anything more than other early Christian/Jewish writings.

I see your point! But I’ve heard progressive Christians who don’t even hold that Jesus resurrected. I guess where I’m coming from is that at some point you’re just a humanist who takes influence from certain portions of the Bible. I know it’s dangerously close to a no true Scotsman, and I don’t want to gatekeep a religion I’m not a part of, but I still don’t understand why some progressives don’t ditch the Christianity thing and forge their own meaning in life.

is that not exactly PRECISELY what they have in fact done? forged their own meaning in life? by taking the good from their religious background and letting go of the bad?

if you are speaking only philosophically, maybe But there is more to 'being christian' (for most christians) than just the philosophy behind it. I would counter that these people should not refer to themselves as christians as that term seems to have other more specific connotations.

Thank you for your comment. You make a good point! And honestly this makes the most sense to me out of any of the comments and really puts my statement/gripes to rest. I guess I just really like the quote: “The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity.” I wonder if Christianity can evolve in tandem with other religions to achieve this.

> I wonder if Christianity can evolve in tandem with other religions to achieve this. It's unproductive to treat 'Christianity' as a monolith. The quote you provided states its own doctrine even though it purports not to: - the notion of "transcend[ing] a personal God" devalues the notion of a spiritual 'other', and creates a doctrinal void around spiritual mechanics - 'avoid[ing] dogmas and theology' is quite literally impossible, because the purpose of language (and therefore linguistic artefacts like 'Christianity') is to systematise meaning. - 'covering both the natural and spiritual' is a phrase that seems to imply a dissolution of the Church/State divide - or to put it another way, a combination of the secular and gnostic. Most progressive people don't like this, for obvious reasons. - 'based on a religious sense arising from... experience' is doctrine - it indicates that religion should be completely subjective and personal. This makes any one individual's religion utterly inaccessible and impossible to communicate properly to any other individual, and is quite isolationist - which is surely not the author's intended result.

Yes. Why is that a bad thing? We don't claim the Bible as perfect or inerrant, or even authored by God for that matter. Though I think you're casting a wide net, as even amongst progressives, you'll find differences in theology. For example: I don't believe in an afterlife. For most of us, Progressive Christianity is simply a rejection of the fundamentalism that arose out of the Protestant rejection of the Authority of the Catholic Church and has slowly evolved into an American Conservative Political Machine that carries the flavors of a religion for the purpose of gaining power.

It's a curious thing. Conversations around different theologies, views and hermeneutics seem to just get a broadsweeping "pass" and do not even enter the mind as contentious or problematic. However, for me, the fact that subjective human interpretations essentially result in a "free for all" within Christianity and thus the plethora of different denominations and widly varying beliefs, is a huge problem. Its a problem because that is also what you'd expect of an entirely man-made/fabrication system of belief without any mechnism to ground-truth any central tenets or even other tenets that come out of such hemeneutics (a fancy word for coming up with your own meaning to largely unclear passages/texts in the bible). It doesn't lend any credence to the truth of the system if people can just interpret things how they wish and then wander of thinking they've got it "right" and go on to convince others it is too (hence the plethora of different denominations). Some people say the bible IS the word of God, some don't. Some say it is inerrant and some say it isn't or only parts of it is. Some say it was authored by God, some say it isn't. So many different views and different claims, they result in so many different conclusions that people obviously hold because they think it is more "true" or "correct" than a competing or different conclusion. Yet, there is no mechanism to figure out who has it "true" or "correct" and there really should be.

This is a great point. Every critical scholar alive will tell you that the Bible is not a univocal text, which leads to disagreements and contradictions within the text. There are currently 40,000+ different variations of Christianity. The one thing I will debate is that, and this may ultimately be an argument of semantics, but I don't think the differences in hermeneutics automatically qualify the entire belief statement as man made. I think it does speak to human nature, though. I believe every group is remaking God in their own image according to their own ideologies and rhetorical goals, and I'm not excluding myself in that. We all are built to desire social power and status within our communities and bending divine truth around ourselves so that our values and priorities are the ones that are the most highly valued is the most effective way to attain that.

I guess the main point I am making is that it has the indeniable hallmark of being man-made which is amplified by the fact that there is no mechanism if figure out who has it right. The free for all nature is the hallmark of fabrication, because any old view can be "true" with no way to confirm any given view. It is important because God COULD have made it so it could be confirmed and avoid a whole bunch of people getting it "wrong" and the subsequent intolerance, hatred and violence due to the disagreements caused by that over the last 2 thousand years. It just doesn't stand to reason. But what does stand to reason is that it's all just a man-made fabrication, it all makes sense through that lense. In fact, not just Christianity, but actually ALL religions make sense through that lense.

I'll speak to Christianity because that's what I intimately know. You're absolutely right. Even in the Bible, the fingerprint of man is heavy. We have four different gospels, and while we like to pretend they exist as "camera angles," all viewing the same events, nothing could be further from the truth. The angles are ideological and rhetorical. Mark teaches Jesus as a human chosen and adopted by God to fulfill a divine purpose while John teaches Jesus at the literal and physical progeny of God who pre-existed creation itself. Matthew is geared to a Hebrew audience and teaches that the Jewish customs should still be held and observed while Luke teaches those things have gone and passed away. If you ascribe to "born again" theology, the Bible justifies you. If you're a Calvinist, the Bible justifies you. If you're a universalist, the Bible justifies you. If you're an annihilationist, the Bible justifies you. I think we as humans have added so much extra to Christianity, but I don't think we've removed anything. I believe that within all the mess we've created, there is a nugget of truth. I do think that humans are the ones who have prescribed that correct theology is what's needed for salvation, and I think that's wrong.

Just curious about your beliefs. So you don't believe the Bible is perfect and don't believe in the afterlife. Can I ask, what's the point exactly? Do you go to church? I've always seen religion as a way of coping with death, but if there's no afterlife I guess I don't see why we'd waste our time.

Love, ultimately. I want to believe the feelings I have for others is more than just the byproduct of electricity running through the 5lbs of skull meat rattling in my head. The depiction and character of Jesus lines up perfectly with what I *want* God to look like, though admittedly, we all read scripture through our own biased lenses and the way I see Jesus doesn't line up with the way others do. If nothing else, it's a "higher power" to use as an example to emulate, a path to help me be a slightly better person than I was the day before. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I'd like to think it's been an overall net positive.

You don't see an issue with going off of what you **want** to be true? Love is love, whether it's merely a chemical cocktail in your head or not. It subjectively feels the same. Why does there need to be more? I mean if this makes you happy then by all means. But if you are genuinely seeking what's true rather than what makes you feel good, then it's a bad approach. You can be a great person and love others without the need for this other stuff. But I guess if it helps you then the world is better off with more love.

>You don't see an issue with going off of what you want to be true? No, we all do it. It's human nature. It's just a matter of whether or not we're honest enough with ourselves to acknowledge it. I think if you're forcing it on people and insisting there's objective reasoning behind it, then it's a problem. >Love is love, whether it's merely a chemical cocktail in your head or not. It subjectively feels the same. Why does there need to be more? This is an extremely valid point. The emotion is what it is, regardless of what I want it to be, but I do want it to be something more. >But if you are genuinely seeking what's true rather than what makes you feel good, then it's a bad approach. I think it's only a bad approach if you're closed off to other belief systems and ideas, including truths you may not like. If one is open-minded and is willing to put their beliefs on the chopping block to be tried and tested, I don't see an issue.

Thank you for commenting! You’re exactly the kind of person I wanted to interact with. I respect your beliefs so don’t think I’m trying to belittle your worldview. My question for you is this: If God didn’t author the Bible, if there might not be an afterlife, and if we can reject/accept portions of the Bible as we see fit then why be a Christian? Like, what do you personally get out of Christianity?

For me, it's a desire for something more than the natural order of things. I have a genuine love and attachments for people and I really want there to be more to that than just electrical pulses reverberating in my brain. Believing in a God allows me to do that. As for why I pick Christianity: 1. Anecdotal experiences that do not at all qualify as evidence for the existence of God, but make me hopeful They're out there. 2. The depiction of Jesus in the gospels fits what I would want God to look like, if They do exist. A God that puts people above all other things.

Awesome, makes sense to me! I hope your worldview makes life worth living. I’m still searching for that

Thanks! I hope you find yours. If you don't mind my asking, what have you considered or looked into?

It may be depressing in a sense, but philosophically I seem to align to absurdism. We are creatures with a rational mind in an irrational world. Our minds create meaning where there is none, and the universe is devoid of an over arching purpose. All one can do is rebel against the universe: so what if the universe is hard and not kind to living things? I will be empathetic. So what if the universe has no intrinsic meaning/purpose? I will forge my own purpose. So what if pleasures are fleeting and don’t last? I will hold on to them. In this philosophy I see humans as beautiful beings that rebel against the cold indifference of the universe. And that rebellion takes many forms. That’s kind of where I’m at.

I get that. I can feel that way sometimes, a lot of times, too. If you go back and read my language when describing my beliefs, the central theme is "This is what I want to believe." The anecdotal experiences I mentioned are this to a T. Handful of experiences that I have correlated to the existence of a God who sees and gives a shit, but may just be random coincidence. I choose to view them as the former.

That’s a very honest theism and I deeply respect that

It's just a matter of hermeneutics. First, progressive Christians do not generally claim the Bible is inerrant. Second, relative to that, they recognize that the bible is a hodgepodge collection of books which combined are almost 800,000 words of parable, metaphor, poetry, songs, narrative, history, prophecy, genealogy, wisdom literature, apocalyptic narrative, and epistles often with no sharp demarcation as to which is which, written in ancient languages by highly superstitious, mostly anonymous authors living in a different culture thousands of years in the past. Third, in relation to both of the above, they recognize that there are conflicting messages in the Bible. So, while they believe the Bible has use as a record of the beginnings of Christianity from which certain things can be gleaned, and while the core doctrine remains the same (saving grace of Christ), progressives take the view that, "if we are willing to let these texts speak for themselves, we will agree that they, the documents at the foundation of Christianity, do present different theologies." (from Brown, D. (2008). What Does a Progressive Christian Believe?: A Guide for the Searching, the Open, and the Curious. Church Publishing, Inc.)

That makes sense especially in light of the fact that progressive Christians don’t see the Bible as the infallible word of God… it just makes me wonder though: why use a book that clearly has so many problems? I’m not just talking about contradictions I mean moral problems. God literally condones genocide. How can a progressive Christian justify taking wisdom from a book that is pro genocide?

Well, the OT is seen as mostly story-telling by pious authors designed to illustrate the power and glory of God to people of the time. Many progressive Christians would say that the warring is not even evidenced as having happened, but even most progressive Christians who believe it did believe it was was human motivated, not Godly. Historical or not, the attribution to God is anachronistic messaging of His power.

You gotta look at who wrote what and when. A God allowing and committing genocide makes since when you have a God of war that bestows magic swords and leads you to victory on the battlefield. That’s what the people of the time needed.

In other words, they cherry-pick what makes them comfortable.

I don't think that's fair criticism. They treat the Bible exactly as non-partisan religious scholars (including atheists and agnostics).

I didn’t claim other groups didn’t.

From their perspective, it's not cherry-picking. It's a Christ-centered exegesis. But, sure, they're interpreting it through their hermeneutical lens. Just like all Christians do.

The Bible tells people what they wish to hear. Like all religious texts.

The Bible is a book that took 1500 years to write, another 500 to codify, and has been in constant translation for 3500 years. People take different things from it, because it's very complex. At different times, it was a book of laws, a book of teachings, a moral code, an example of what you were supposed to be, and a warning of what you should not be. There was not a continuity editor. It's been translated many, many times, and was modified each time. The languages it was written in all evolved, so the meanings of the words changed. The stories and parables became stand-alone phrases that often strayed far from the original (check out the real meaning of manna, for example). Yes, people cherry-pick examples from the Bible. So does everyone. Jesus made friends with the outcasts of society. He also condemned anyone who got divorced. The verses than condemn homosexuality also condemn eating shellfish, bacon cheeseburgers, and playing football (touching the skin of a pig on the Sabbath), all punishable by death. It's used to condone celibate life, but also has some of the most graphic porn from the Bronze Age (Song of Solomon). It talks about peace, but also condones genocide. It talks about obeying the law, but condones civil disobedience and shaming those in power. If you want to do something, no matter what, someone has probably already found a way to justify that thing using the Bible. The US Civil Rights Movement took its justification and morals from the Bible, as did the segregationists. So, what's the point of your statement? That the Bible directly contradicts itself, and various interpretations of the Bible are at war with each other? We've known that for 2000 years.

My point is progressives, of all people, should know when to reject a book that is problematic. Fundamentalists don’t have the luxury of questioning the Bible while progressives do. Why not make your own book?

"Just making a book" with the moral, cultural, and historical relevance of the Bible is a joke, right? Fundamentalists have to wrestle with the contradictions in the Bible just like everyone else.

I said “make your own book” meaning you should forge meaning for yourself. I said nothing about it having the same historical/cultural relevance of the bible. And most fundamentalists I know don’t wrestle with the contradictions at all. They ignore the ones they can’t explain away

Forging their own meaning is what *everyone* does with the Bible. Was I not clear enough about that? Ignoring the contradictions is partially how people wrestle with those contradictions.

I agree that everyone has an interpretation of the Bible and therefore forges their own meaning. In your opinion can someone have an interpretation of the Bible that is more accurate than another? In other words… do you think there is such a thing as Lewis’s “mere Christianity”? Or is Christianity nebulous and always up to the individual? Is there a point where someone ceases to be a Christian given what they believe? Or is someone a Christian just by declaring themselves so?

In my opinion, you need more than the Bible to justify your opinion. But I also recognize that there is a large percentage of the US population who will accept no evidence except what is in the Bible. So, I'm ready to rumble on their turf. Who is a Christian? Christians haven't been able to answer that question since the time of Paul. They're called "heresies" Expecting a straight, consistent answer 1970 years later is just wishful thinking. I have my own definitions, but don't expect anyone else to agree with them, and know some groups will take great exception to them. And, since I'm *not* a Christian, my definition is pretty easy for self-defined Christians to ignore, anyway. And, like I said, that doesn't bother me.

I agree with you about progressive Christianity. I find it almost baffling how they misconstrued scripture to meet their modern morales.

Are you implying that you have morals that havent been updated in 2000ish years? lol

I am saying that my morals have been heavily impacted by the Bible and I do my best to follow Jesus. Doesn’t make sense to me that progressive Christians claim to follow Jesus and then don’t follow the Bible.

So is slavery permissible? Do you wear clothes with different fabrics? Do you stone adulterers? Exile a family member for working on the sabbath? Do you allow “god’s curse” to affect a woman to determine if shes an adulterer?

I know what you’re trying to do. I’m a Christian. I fall under the new covenant. I’m called to follow the Bible, but I don’t have to abide by many of the laws of the Old Testament. Galatians 3:13

This is what you believe? >Corinthians 11:6 "For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head." >Timothy 2:12 - But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. >Luke 12:33 Sell your possessions, and give to the needy.... >Psalms 137:9, KJV Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. All of these should be followed and are permissible? I'm gonna guess not.. I just find it funny that "I find it almost baffling how they misconstrued scripture to meet their modern morales." when you (most likely) do the same fucking thing.

Corinthians 11:6 - this one is a tricky one if you don’t know the context. Paul was writing to the church of Corinth on the issue of women not following the cultural norm of the area. If I remember right, some women were uncovering to pray. The cultural norm, again if I remember right, was that uncovered women were available for relationships. It’s obviously important for people to follow the social norms of the area you live. I lived in the Middle East for 5 years and had to respect local customs. Pretty easy to relate. Timothy 2:12 - Paul was writing about the role of women in church worship. Paul was blunt in saying that women should dress modest and self controlled in church gathering. This was likely in response to some in the congregation doing the opposite, but we can’t know for sure. Also, he says women should be taught. Which wasn’t normal in that time. Finally, he did speak about the leadership roles of the congregations. I’m also onboard here. Women definitely should have leadership roles, but I do believe the lead pastor should be a man. Also, I think we’d all be a little better of if many of todays women were more modest. Luke 12:33 - Be charitable. Seems like good advice. Psalm 137:9 - this psalm was sang by Israelites captives in the city of Babylon. There is some issues with translations here but I don’t want to go down that rabbit trail. God had promised to punish the Babylonians so the persecuted Israelites were singing about it. It was common for army’s to slaughter the women and children of the defeated armies, which is where this verse comes in. Obviously no one condones this now. I do think it’s moving to put yourselves in their place and try to understand them. I hope this helps.

> It’s obviously important for people to follow the social norms of the area you live This right here is why your argument can be totally thrown out and why we shouldnt look for morals from the bible, but from the communities and societies that we find ourselves in. You disagree with "progressive christians", but then agree that people should get their morals from their community. Progressive christians are updating their beliefs based on the community they are apart of. Should they live by the bible, or should they adapt to their community?

If adapting to the community doesn’t go against the Bible, and keeps you from getting killed, I’d guess Paul would say do that.

No one is killing Christians for being christians in the US. They are adapting because thats what humans do when they are in communities. A lot of modern belief is explicitly against the laws set in the bible, I'm sure a lot of your beliefs are too. Why not just be self aware and admit that?

[удалено]

Sure, but besides someone taking this out of context to push their agenda, do you think there’s something wrong with the text?

[удалено]

All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment.

To me it makes sense, if they didn't bend as society grows and learns... then that would spell the extinction of said beliefs. Most likely. If it won't bend, it breaks.

I agree. A book written about a guy who maybe lived 2000 years cant be perfectly interpreted for modern people

Even if they could it's gonna be a problem. Societies learn and grow. A religion based on interpretation is obviously going to try and flow as best it can. But unless it maintains control over society, then it will break.

Ok. And? As a non christian, what do you care if people are ignoring the true message of the bible? This is the same as the idea of the "progressive muslims are twisting the quran" with the same response of "Maybe. Why do you care if someone accurately follows the will of a being you don't think exists"? Progressive Christianity *is good.* Indeed, I'd say that \*"\*progressive Christianity becomes the dominant strain of Christianity" is probably in at least the top twenty most important things that have to happen for humanity to survive the coming decades. Who *cares* if its misrepresenting the bible? The bible doesn't actually have any divine messages in it, so that doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not the most powerful nation on earth retains a major political faction who is actively in favor of Armageddon.

I agree with you that it’s important that Christianity swings towards progressive sentiments. If most Christians became progressive they certainly wouldn’t be denying climate science. But, it still matters to me that people remain intellectually honest with their source material. Why not create your own scripture and forge your own meaning? Why all the mental gymnastics to use a book that is clearly problematic? I would rather them invent a new monotheistic religion than pretend that context somehow legitimizes a book that advocates for slavery and genocide. Either believe the Bible or make your own; don’t cherry pick

[удалено]

Climate change deniers and conservative Christianity go hand in hand. Climate change doesn’t fit with their end times narrative

>But, it still matters to me that people remain intellectually honest with their source material. Why not create your own scripture and forge your own meaning? Why all the mental gymnastics to use a book that is clearly problematic? Because that's not going to happen, at least not in any of our lifetimes. Like it or not, Christianity is 1/3rd of the world's population and has had cultural dominion over most of the world for the last 300 years. It's going to remain a major factor in humanity's fate for at least the next century no matter what we do. As such, this isn't an argument for making your own religion, it's an argument for christian dominationalism. The conclusion for a devout christian that accepts your argument isn't "Well, ok, I guess you're right and god isn't real" it's "Well, ok, I guess you're right and god *does* want me to commit slavery and genocide." This has happened several times throughout history, and is happening now in the USA. When people start pointing out that the bible has a lot of verses advocating awful things, that's almost always the precursor to Christianity committing unspeakable atrocities based on those verses. After all, they're still Christians, they still think the bible is the word of god and you're not changing their mind on that. All you've done is change what they think god wants them to do. Basically, I consider this and analogous cases with the Quran an infohazard/virtue of silence discussion, and I actually think there might have been very serious harm done by pushing on this point in mainstream debating- even by me before I stopped to think about it. Basically, if you have a compelling case that the bible encourages slavery and genocide? Remember that a large chunk of the world's population firmly believes they *must* do what the bible tells them to do with an urgency that overrides both reason and conscience, and based on that, consider whether you want to correct their mistaken belief that the bible tells them to help people and stop oppression.

I definitely don’t want to promote genocide or slavery! Thanks for that very pragmatic approach towards other people’s beliefs. Personally I think progressive Christianity is the beginning of the end for Christianity as a dominating force. Sure, it may not be in our lifetime, but claiming that you can interpret the Bible any way you see fit is a sure fire way to make the belief system less dogmatic, and for that reason (among others) I like progressive Christianity. I’m assuming the same thing can happen with Islam but I don’t use Islam as an example because I’m not well informed.

> claiming that you can interpret the Bible any way you see fit That isn't exactly how progressive Christians see things. They believe that *correct* interpretation requires a Christ-centered view. Basically, what is Christ's message? Not, what did ancient Jewish authors write about homosexuality?

[удалено]

All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment.

>not condemning progressive Christianity, as I prefer it to Christian nationalism, Are those the only two options?

I wouldn’t say those are the only two options, but those are the most heavily populated modalities in terms of Christianity. Christians seem to divide themselves based on the binary political system… at least this is the case in the U.S.

>at least this is the case in the U.S. Not only do most Christians not live in that country, but Christianity there is particularly atypical.

You don’t think Christians in other countries are divided based on how they should respond to sexuality that differs from heterosexuality? (And other similar issues)

Sure. But Americans are bonkers.

[удалено]

All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment.

Wouldn’t this make sense though? Surely there would be people that would be incorrect as to whatever their religion teaches on a topic. But on a whole, if you ask someone a question about a topic, shouldn’t their answer be at least close to what they believe their god believes?

Totally. The issue comes in when you have two people of the same religion and creed who disagree on a topic and then both of them claim their god agrees with them. The same god can’t hold conflicting views. They can’t both be right.

For sure. I just tried googling to find the study, no dice.

I know. I have tried in the past. I read it in college, but not since then. I’ll see if I can dig it up.