• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Are there concrete arguments against non-conservative Christianity?

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,712
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
I'm especially interested to learn whether there have been any significant authors or thinkers whose focus was the discrediting of liberal or progressive Christianity. I have mastered many of the "classic" atheist texts, but they tend to have either Baptist Protestantism or conservative Catholicism in their cross-hairs, at best giving a few side-swipes at the supposed hypocrisy or transitional nature of non-conservatives but not really addressing this variant of the faith head-on. I find the same trend in online discourse, but that is not exactly scraping the top of the intellectual barrel. Has anyone taken on liberal Christianity in a more serious way?

I am particularly interested in arguments for why one should not choose to follow a secularized, religiously ecumenical, openly-questioning variant of the faith. I get that, from an atheist perspective, it is of course wrong to follow any sort of religion simply because it is religion, posits unnecessary entities, etc etc. But I'm looking for something more specific to prog Christianity.
 

Underseer

Contributor
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
11,413
Location
Chicago suburbs
Basic Beliefs
atheism, resistentialism
I'm especially interested to learn whether there have been any significant authors or thinkers whose focus was the discrediting of liberal or progressive Christianity. I have mastered many of the "classic" atheist texts, but they tend to have either Baptist Protestantism or conservative Catholicism in their cross-hairs, at best giving a few side-swipes at the supposed hypocrisy or transitional nature of non-conservatives but not really addressing this variant of the faith head-on. I find the same trend in online discourse, but that is not exactly scraping the top of the intellectual barrel. Has anyone taken on liberal Christianity in a more serious way?

I am particularly interested in arguments for why one should not choose to follow a secularized, religiously ecumenical, openly-questioning variant of the faith. I get that, from an atheist perspective, it is of course wrong to follow any sort of religion simply because it is religion, posits unnecessary entities, etc etc. But I'm looking for something more specific to prog Christianity.

The arguments against Christian truth claims are not specific to the conservative/liberal or strident/moderate divide.

Christian truth claims are not to be regarded as true because they have not been true. Whether the person making unsupported truth claims is liberal or conservative is irrelevant.

As Aron Ra says, if you can't prove it, you don't know it.
 

Opoponax

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,384
Location
California Central Coast
Basic Beliefs
Apathetic Atheist
I'm especially interested to learn whether there have been any significant authors or thinkers whose focus was the discrediting of liberal or progressive Christianity. I have mastered many of the "classic" atheist texts, but they tend to have either Baptist Protestantism or conservative Catholicism in their cross-hairs, at best giving a few side-swipes at the supposed hypocrisy or transitional nature of non-conservatives but not really addressing this variant of the faith head-on. I find the same trend in online discourse, but that is not exactly scraping the top of the intellectual barrel. Has anyone taken on liberal Christianity in a more serious way?

I am particularly interested in arguments for why one should not choose to follow a secularized, religiously ecumenical, openly-questioning variant of the faith. I get that, from an atheist perspective, it is of course wrong to follow any sort of religion simply because it is religion, posits unnecessary entities, etc etc. But I'm looking for something more specific to prog Christianity.

Just because I've never heard of it doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but I don't recall ever reading a liberal vs. conservative... thing when it comes to proof of the supernatural. Whether leprechauns pulled the lever for Trump, or whether they pulled it for Hillary is immaterial until leprechauns are shown to exist.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
I'm especially interested to learn whether there have been any significant authors or thinkers whose focus was the discrediting of liberal or progressive Christianity. I have mastered many of the "classic" atheist texts, but they tend to have either Baptist Protestantism or conservative Catholicism in their cross-hairs, at best giving a few side-swipes at the supposed hypocrisy or transitional nature of non-conservatives but not really addressing this variant of the faith head-on. I find the same trend in online discourse, but that is not exactly scraping the top of the intellectual barrel. Has anyone taken on liberal Christianity in a more serious way?

I am particularly interested in arguments for why one should not choose to follow a secularized, religiously ecumenical, openly-questioning variant of the faith. I get that, from an atheist perspective, it is of course wrong to follow any sort of religion simply because it is religion, posits unnecessary entities, etc etc. But I'm looking for something more specific to prog Christianity.
I'm not sure I can point to significant authors or thinkers; I would need more information about the tenets of a "secularized, religiously ecumenical, openly-questioning variant of the faith". Even if I can't find any from other people, I'm sure I can make a case that is different from a generic case against religion or even against theism, at least as long as the religion you have in mind has specific tenets I can challenge (if not, then I only have a generic case, precisely because it's a generic sort of belief).

ETA: generally speaking, I need to know the specific tenets of the religion in order to make a tailored case against it. For example, if your religion holds that Jesus was morally perfect, I would argue he was not. If it holds that he was morally great, a hero or a saint or something like that, I would argue (depending on how it treats the Bible) either that that is false, or that it is epistemically irrational to believe it is true, etc. But I need more information before I can make a case.
 
Last edited:

Bronzeage

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
7,502
Location
Deep South
Basic Beliefs
Pragmatic
I'm especially interested to learn whether there have been any significant authors or thinkers whose focus was the discrediting of liberal or progressive Christianity. I have mastered many of the "classic" atheist texts, but they tend to have either Baptist Protestantism or conservative Catholicism in their cross-hairs, at best giving a few side-swipes at the supposed hypocrisy or transitional nature of non-conservatives but not really addressing this variant of the faith head-on. I find the same trend in online discourse, but that is not exactly scraping the top of the intellectual barrel. Has anyone taken on liberal Christianity in a more serious way?

I am particularly interested in arguments for why one should not choose to follow a secularized, religiously ecumenical, openly-questioning variant of the faith. I get that, from an atheist perspective, it is of course wrong to follow any sort of religion simply because it is religion, posits unnecessary entities, etc etc. But I'm looking for something more specific to prog Christianity.

What is to be gained by discrediting liberal or progressive Christianity? Is there some kind of point system, to keep score?

Is there some point level where a liberal and progressive Christian has to admit they've been wrong all along and stop preaching love for all and the brotherhood of mankind?
 

Ford

Contributor
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
5,839
Location
'Merica
Basic Beliefs
Godless Heathen
Has anyone taken on liberal Christianity in a more serious way?

I don't know of anyone who has explicitly made the case that Christianity is fundamentally conservative and/or cannot be liberal, no.

Seems to be a hard case to make what with Jesus (allegedly) rejecting the traditions of the faith he was born into, and Constantine throwing out traditional Roman gods in favor of Jesus. Protestantism is of course a rejection of orthodoxy with nails and doors and such.

Granted, this doesn't mean that modern sects can't align with the current understanding of "liberal" and "conservative," but overall I think a case can be made that at it's core Christianity isn't conservative.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
10,027
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
The debunkers of liberal Christianity are conservative Christians.
 

southernhybrid

Contributor
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
6,621
Location
Georgia, US
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I don't think that most atheists really have a problem with liberal or progressive versions of Christianity, or any other liberal religion for that matter. I certainly don't. I'd fit in just fine with a bunch of UUs. Imo, it's all mythological in nature, but if you pick the sweet cherries of religion and throw out the sour ones, I'm fine with that.

But, steve made a good point. It's usually the evangelicals that scorn liberal versions of Christianity.
 

Sarpedon

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2002
Messages
2,976
Location
MN, US
Basic Beliefs
the Philosophy of Not Giving a Damn
The problem with a rational debunking of liberal christianity is that they so rarely make concrete, provable claims.

You can't argue against a feeling.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
The debunkers of liberal Christianity are conservative Christians.

I've done a pretty good deal of debunking, and it covers several versions of Christianity that would qualify as "liberal" (ETA: and so, "non-conservative") But Politesse version is unknown, so I don't want to make a case in order to be told that that's not liberal (ETA: or not "non-conservative") Christianity. I need to know what he's talking about before I can make a case.
 
Last edited:

Jobar

Zen Hedonist
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Messages
1,102
Location
Georgia
Basic Beliefs
atheist/pantheist
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=365&v=5wV_REEdvxo[/YOUTUBE]

Start at about 4:50, there.

Seems to me that liberal faiths tend towards deism, fideism, or even frank agnosticism. As that video points out, the vaguer the God you believe in, the less relevance it has to our lives. Fideism, belief purely on faith with no attempt at rational justification, has the same problem as apophatic theology; trust Jesus & Mo to have a trenchant commentary on that. :)
http://www.jesusandmo.net/wp-content/uploads/tell2.png

tell2.png

But as Angra and others have pointed out, if we're asked for concrete arguments, we'll need more concrete definitions of what you mean by 'non-conservative Christianity'.
 

Kharakov

Quantum Hot Dog
Joined
Aug 3, 2000
Messages
4,371
Location
OCCaUSA
Basic Beliefs
Don't step on mine.
What is to be gained by discrediting liberal or progressive Christianity? Is there some kind of point system, to keep score?

Is there some point level where a liberal and progressive Christian has to admit they've been wrong all along and stop preaching love for all and the brotherhood of mankind?

If they practiced it....
 

Kharakov

Quantum Hot Dog
Joined
Aug 3, 2000
Messages
4,371
Location
OCCaUSA
Basic Beliefs
Don't step on mine.
The problem with a rational debunking of liberal christianity is that they so rarely make concrete, provable claims.

You can't argue against a feeling.
How about arguing against someone who thinks facts are opinions?

I have a friend who says at this point in her life, her faith is what keeps her going. So is it cruel to attack it when I know she votes her conscience, which is what her pastor leads her to?

Should Christians get to vote, since God takes care of them? I don't think so.
 

Lion IRC

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2016
Messages
4,638
Basic Beliefs
Biblical theist
The debunkers of liberal Christianity are conservative Christians.

They are not very good at laying out rational cases for anything. :D

This Op reminds me of Mark 9:38

"John said to Jesus, “Teacher, we saw someone using your name to cast out demons, but we told him to stop because he wasn’t in our group.”"
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,712
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,712
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
The debunkers of liberal Christianity are conservative Christians.

I've done a pretty good deal of debunking, and it covers several versions of Christianity that would qualify as "liberal" (ETA: and so, "non-conservative") But Politesse version is unknown, so I don't want to make a case in order to be told that that's not liberal (ETA: or not "non-conservative") Christianity. I need to know what he's talking about before I can make a case.

I had no particular variant in mind. Liberal Christianity is quite diverse (as is, for that matter, conservative Christianity). But since there have been liberal strains of the faith for a very long time, I was curious what, if any, arguments had ever been tailored in their direction. As for me personally, no one would consider me a good representative of any particular group I shouldn't think.

I think the libera in liberal, when speaking of Christianity, is generally understood as freedom from past orthodoxies, traditional political power structures, and the intellectual enslavement of the literalist hermeneutic with respect to the Bible.
 

Underseer

Contributor
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
11,413
Location
Chicago suburbs
Basic Beliefs
atheism, resistentialism
I'm especially interested to learn whether there have been any significant authors or thinkers whose focus was the discrediting of liberal or progressive Christianity. I have mastered many of the "classic" atheist texts, but they tend to have either Baptist Protestantism or conservative Catholicism in their cross-hairs, at best giving a few side-swipes at the supposed hypocrisy or transitional nature of non-conservatives but not really addressing this variant of the faith head-on. I find the same trend in online discourse, but that is not exactly scraping the top of the intellectual barrel. Has anyone taken on liberal Christianity in a more serious way?

I am particularly interested in arguments for why one should not choose to follow a secularized, religiously ecumenical, openly-questioning variant of the faith. I get that, from an atheist perspective, it is of course wrong to follow any sort of religion simply because it is religion, posits unnecessary entities, etc etc. But I'm looking for something more specific to prog Christianity.

The arguments against Christian truth claims are not specific to the conservative/liberal or strident/moderate divide.

Christian truth claims are not to be regarded as true because they have not been true. Whether the person making unsupported truth claims is liberal or conservative is irrelevant.

As Aron Ra says, if you can't prove it, you don't know it.

"been true" should be "been proved true."

Sorry for the typo.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
The debunkers of liberal Christianity are conservative Christians.

I've done a pretty good deal of debunking, and it covers several versions of Christianity that would qualify as "liberal" (ETA: and so, "non-conservative") But Politesse version is unknown, so I don't want to make a case in order to be told that that's not liberal (ETA: or not "non-conservative") Christianity. I need to know what he's talking about before I can make a case.

I had no particular variant in mind. Liberal Christianity is quite diverse (as is, for that matter, conservative Christianity). But since there have been liberal strains of the faith for a very long time, I was curious what, if any, arguments had ever been tailored in their direction. As for me personally, no one would consider me a good representative of any particular group I shouldn't think.

I think the libera in liberal, when speaking of Christianity, is generally understood as freedom from past orthodoxies, traditional political power structures, and the intellectual enslavement of the literalist hermeneutic with respect to the Bible.

Okay, so how about the following brief argument against the epistemic rationality of the belief that Jesus was morally perfect - which is held by liberal Christians like Randal Rauser -, or even good as a moral teacher (which is way more than would be needed to target most versions of liberal Christianity).

Argument?

Let's look at the Gospel. For example (there are other problems), in several passages, Jesus unmistakably endorses OT law, not necessarily for application to Christians (that is more obscure), but surely as the law given by a morally good all-powerful creator to the ancient Israelites. That shows a big error in judgment on his part, assuming that the Gospel's passages in question are accurate.
Is there a way around that?
The liberal Christian might say that those passages are not accurate precisely because in them, Jesus makes serious errors in moral judgement, which he would not. But then, what is the evidence that he would not? If it's based just on other passages in which Jesus does better, that's not a rational way of assessing whether he was good at ascertaining moral truth, but rather, an assumption beforehand.
The liberal Christian might alternatively argue that those passages have been mistranslated. But then, most liberal Christians simply do not have the knowledge to do the translation themselves, and there are a good number of people who can and disagree with such claims. What is the basis for the preference to exclude those passages?
Moreover, even if we exclude some passages, what remains also does not show any good evidence of someone better than we are at figuring out moral truths, as we can tell by looking at his claims. Now, the liberal Christian can say that the passages are obscure and we do not know what Jesus said, but then we have no good reason to believe he was a good moral teacher. In fact, most people aren't, so without any specific evidence that he was, one should hold that he probably was not.

Granted, the liberal Christian might have other claims; this is just a brief argument, but all such claims can be tackled, at least if they're clear enough to be understood.

I'm not sure that argument is concrete enough for the purposes of your question, but here's a narrower one:

Source: http://ebible.org/web/MAT05.htm

Matthew 5 said:
27. You have heard that it was said, § ‘You shall not commit adultery;’✡ 28 but I tell you that everyone who gazes at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it away from you. For it is more profitable for you that one of your members should perish than for your whole body to be cast into Gehenna.* 30 If your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off, and throw it away from you. For it is more profitable for you that one of your members should perish, than for your whole body to be cast into Gehenna.
Here, Jesus implies that looking at a woman with lust is immoral, which of course depends on the case and often is not, but furthermore, he claims that people who behave immorally are at risk of being "cast into Gehenna", i.e., a horrific afterlife punishment, which Jesus implies (given context) is meted out by a morally perfect creator.
So, Jesus was very mistaken about morality in that passage. It did not end there, though:

Matthew 5 said:
31 “It was also said, ‘Whoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorce,’✡ 32 but I tell you that whoever puts away his wife, except for the cause of sexual immorality, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries her when she is put away commits adultery.

It is obviously not true that the only valid reason to leave one's wife is sexual immorality. Surely, attempted murder on the husband (for example) would count!

But let's leave that aside. There is a more fundamental problem with this passage: if a woman is abandoned by her husband, she does not commit adultery or behave immorally for that reason (which was implied by Jesus here) if she finds a new partner and gets married again (legally, it depends on the law of the land, but Jesus was talking about morality). The new husband does nothing wrong, either, for that reason alone (there might be other reasons, but not that).

So, once again, Jesus is quite mistaken in his moral assessments.
 

Bronzeage

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
7,502
Location
Deep South
Basic Beliefs
Pragmatic
What is to be gained by discrediting liberal or progressive Christianity? Is there some kind of point system, to keep score?

Is there some point level where a liberal and progressive Christian has to admit they've been wrong all along and stop preaching love for all and the brotherhood of mankind?

If they practiced it....

There won't be any crows landing on this thread.
 

braces_for_impact

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
3,398
Location
Clearwater, FL.
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
With regards to the OP:

One of the arguments I've encountered time and again is how moderate Christians give "cover" so to speak, to their fundamentalist brethren. Again, superstition doesn't care if your particular Christianity (or religion of choice) is slightly more palatable to modern sensibilities. The problem is, moderate versions of religion really have no more intellectual credibility than their extremists. In fact, in some views, it's plainly the extremists who are keeping their doctrine closer to scripture.

Some reading:
The Josiah Effect: How Moderate Religion Fuels Fundamentalism

Richard Dawkins: Churchgoers enable fundamentalists by being 'nice'

There are many other claims like these that you can search using the Internet. You may agree with some, all or none of them. Personally, I think some are persuasive.

Related to some slightly off topic posts in this thread regarding Jesus. The descriptions of Jesus himself in the gospels makes disagreement between sects of Christianity all the easier. There is a Jesus for any persuasion of Christianity you care to name and an even more personal Jesus for every Christian. One I notice, that tends to always agree with his followers. Look closely in the gospels (especially note the differences between gospels) and you can find a Jesus to justify whatever type of Christianity you happen to like. This makes it so easy for the No True Scotsman fallacy to rear it's ugly and popular head time and again, especially in days like these where Christians seem to be doing the most awful of things. You end time sects prefer a retributive/ judgment type of Jesus. The GOP like the libertarian Jesus. New age Christianity like accepting hippie Jesus, the Catholics tend toward hierarchical mystical Jesus, and so on. Being "Christ-like" is entirely in the eye of the beholder.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
10,027
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Liberal Christansbdo the same as conservatives they pick abd choose parts of scripture to fit a personal narrative.

Let me make it clear, I am not anti gay. That being said if I go by the OT you can not be gay and Christian. If a gay person identifies as Christian that is neither here nor there for me it is a personal choice.

Poin being a Christian protestant pretty much defines what a Christian is for themselves.
 

repoman

Contributor
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
8,304
Location
Seattle, WA
Basic Beliefs
Science Based Atheism
Liberal Christansbdo the same as conservatives they pick abd choose parts of scripture to fit a personal narrative.

Let me make it clear, I am not anti gay. That being said if I go by the OT you can not be gay and Christian. If a gay person identifies as Christian that is neither here nor there for me it is a personal choice.

Poin being a Christian protestant pretty much defines what a Christian is for themselves.

Well a sexual active gay person can't be orthodox jewish by a strict reading.

Yeah, I agree that for the most part a group defining itself should be "respected", even if they define out some people from their group.

If there is a sect that says gays or "gays acts" are not allowed, let them do it. Who cares?

But there is an odd privilege that religions have as a legacy to them have a shitload of power. That is the ability to make very exclusionary rules that would not work for many other non religious groups.

Somehow I got reminded of this video and the contrast with the audio.
 

Lion IRC

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2016
Messages
4,638
Basic Beliefs
Biblical theist
This Op reminds me of Mark 9:38

"John said to Jesus, “Teacher, we saw someone using your name to cast out demons, but we told him to stop because he wasn’t in our group.”"

Jesus, as I recall, took something of a different view to the matter.

Yes He did.
Hence we have...
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"
"In necessary things unity; in uncertain things liberty; in all things charity"
 

Jobar

Zen Hedonist
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Messages
1,102
Location
Georgia
Basic Beliefs
atheist/pantheist
Fundamentalist, Conservative, Moderate, Progressive, Liberal; how are we to tell the difference between and among the differing sorts of Christians?

Completely serious question. Is it only according to how individual believers identify their own positions? Are there any objective ways we doubters can tell who is which?

Poli, I've often said that there are many fine precepts and lessons in the Bible, and if you choose carefully you can build a basically good (if not necessarily accurate) ethics and worldview from them. I don't think any of us atheists condemn all Christian denominations equally; sohy mentioned the Unitarians, and I've known Quakers and members of the more liberal version of the Church of Christ I agreed with way more often than I disagreed. It's only to be expected that the more extremist and unreasonable the church, the more we unbelievers will argue against it. But as long as there is any degree of supernatural belief there- until you get to 'cultural Christians' who just like some of the tropes and memes of Christianity, without believing or spouting any of the woo- we'll still have some disagreement with them.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,712
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Liberal Christansbdo the same as conservatives they pick abd choose parts of scripture to fit a personal narrative.

Let me make it clear, I am not anti gay. That being said if I go by the OT you can not be gay and Christian. If a gay person identifies as Christian that is neither here nor there for me it is a personal choice.

Poin being a Christian protestant pretty much defines what a Christian is for themselves.

Is that a bad thing? Why?

I am often told that blind, unthinking faith is a virtue. But I have never known it to be thus. You should be a critical thinker, a critical reader. You should carefully "pick and choose" what you consider true or untrue, moral or immoral. Indeed, I would argue that the maintenance of a civil society depends on the ability to do exactly this. This is exactly why I oppose radicalism, so it seems weird to have it echoed back to me as a criticism - by someone who would, like me, be immediately murdered if this supposed virtue were always followed.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
10,027
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Liberal Christansbdo the same as conservatives they pick abd choose parts of scripture to fit a personal narrative.

Let me make it clear, I am not anti gay. That being said if I go by the OT you can not be gay and Christian. If a gay person identifies as Christian that is neither here nor there for me it is a personal choice.

Poin being a Christian protestant pretty much defines what a Christian is for themselves.

Is that a bad thing? Why?

I am often told that blind, unthinking faith is a virtue. But I have never known it to be thus. You should be a critical thinker, a critical reader. You should carefully "pick and choose" what you consider true or untrue, moral or immoral. Indeed, I would argue that the maintenance of a civil society depends on the ability to do exactly this. This is exactly why I oppose radicalism, so it seems weird to have it echoed back to me as a criticism - by someone who would, like me, be immediately murdered if this supposed virtue were always followed.

I do not think I was addressing you. I am Jeffersonian. We are all free to believe or not believe in anything limited by social constraints. I am not anti religion in a general sense. If anyoone gay or straight finds comfort in religion, good for them.

I personally do not think you can be gay and Christian by scripture. But you can not divorce or fornicate and be Christian either.
 

OLDMAN

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
906
Location
NB
Basic Beliefs
NONE
There is a movement by some (very few) that would like to take the god out of Jesus, thus reducing his teachings to a more humanistic level. They feel it is the only way to save Christianity, as it's numbers fall. Others don't feel this is necessary, given the rules (that matter) that Jesus taught were already in use before and certainly after his death. Even in places where his teachings hadn't reached. To me this would be a truly liberal approach to the religion.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,712
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
There is a movement by some (very few) that would like to take the god out of Jesus, thus reducing his teachings to a more humanistic level. They feel it is the only way to save Christianity, as it's numbers fall. Others don't feel this is necessary, given the rules (that matter) that Jesus taught were already in use before and certainly after his death. Even in places where his teachings hadn't reached. To me this would be a truly liberal approach to the religion.

I wouldn't call it very few. In my country, only a bit more than half of the population believes that Jesus was God, despite being overwhelmingly Christian. When you look specifically at younger people, it is less than half. https://www.barna.com/research/what-do-americans-believe-about-jesus-5-popular-beliefs/

I do believe that Jesus was God, personally, but that is a natural implication of pantheism and as such also applies to us normies. So even some of those who agree that Jesus was God might, like me, not mean it in quite the sense of the post-Chalcedon administrative consensus.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
10,027
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,712
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Initially there were many versions. The question of divinity and supernaturnatural was an open question. It was settled into a common theology at Nicene.

The Nicene Creed was essentialy a loyalty oath.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

Jeferson created a revision of the NT minus miracles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
It is a MUCH longer and more complicated story than just the first council of Nicaea. It is not correct that there was a "common theology" from that point onward - Arianism continued for centuries afterward, and that was not the last disagreement over Christology either. Nor is the creed commonly called the Nicene Creed a product of that council, as your link rightly notes; we only possess a second draft of sorts, written nearly sixty years later in different political circumstances.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
To continue the case, here's some more:

ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/8/2/9/8294/8294-h/8294-h.htm

Luke 16 said:
16:16 The law and the prophets were until John. From that time the Good News of the Kingdom of God is preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. 16:17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one tiny stroke of a pen in the law to fall.
Matthew 5 said:
5:17 "Don't think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn't come to destroy, but to fulfill. 5:18 For most certainly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished.

Here's what I said elsewhere:


While Jesus does not specify in those passages exactly how things will change, he clearly implies that Yahweh exists, and also implicitly endorses Yahweh’s actions from a moral perspective.

Moreover, when Jesus says that the law sufficed until the time of John, he is implying that following the law was at the very least morally acceptable for people living under such law, in ancient Israelite society.

Granted, different translations have different wordings, but in any case, it seems clear in context that he was in fact implying such acceptability. Jesus never suggested that any of the ancient Israelites should have disobeyed the law, or that the law was unjust. Yet, a decisive problem is that the only law available to those ancient Israelites after Moses, and which Jesus was talking about, was the full set of laws written in the Old Testament.

So, Jesus’s claims imply, in context, that if some of those ancient Israelites stoned a woman to death for having sex before marriage and marrying someone who didn’t know about it – regardless of whether her marriage was forced, but even leaving that aside, Jesus's implication is false -, or burned a woman to death because she was the daughter of a priest and was also a prostitute, or burned a man and two women to death because he married them both and they were mother and daughter, etc., then they didn’t do anything immoral – as long, at least, as they followed some procedure perhaps -, and that Old Testament Law – much of which was profoundly immoral – was ‘enough’.

This shows that Jesus believed that some – or rather many – very immoral behaviors were morally acceptable at least – or even morally obligatory -, or that lied by deliberately making false moral claims, or was unaware of much of what the Mosaic Law said. But based on the New Testament, we can conclude he was at least reasonably knowledgeable about the content of the Old Testament in general and Old Testament laws in particular, so it seems either Jesus had some false moral beliefs – many, but some is enough to make this point -, or was lying. Moreover, Jesus was promoting some false moral beliefs as well.

Note that regardless of when the OT was codified, the relevant parts (i.e., Mosaic Law) was well known by the time of Jesus, and while there might have been some differences of interpretation of some passages, in general it is still a pretty unjust set of laws overall. Jesus was again very mistaken about morality.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
10,027
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Initially there were many versions. The question of divinity and supernaturnatural was an open question. It was settled into a common theology at Nicene.

The Nicene Creed was essentialy a loyalty oath.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

Jeferson created a revision of the NT minus miracles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
It is a MUCH longer and more complicated story than just the first council of Nicaea. It is not correct that there was a "common theology" from that point onward - Arianism continued for centuries afterward, and that was not the last disagreement over Christology either. Nor is the creed commonly called the Nicene Creed a product of that council, as your link rightly notes; we only possess a second draft of sorts, written nearly sixty years later in different political circumstances.

Novene weas the foubndation of what developed into the Roman Catholic Church, being fostered by Constantine as a tool of state and unification. There were open hostilities between sects, some violent. Post Nicene the supression of differing views began and the solidification of an oththodoxy. An orthodoxy that dominated until The Reformation.

What isn't complex. I wrote a post not a dissertation....
 
Top Bottom