braces_for_impact
Veteran Member
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.
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.