Are there any liberal Christians left in here?

[angryfirelord]

I certainly enjoy browsing and discussing important topics here at DU and I've learned quite a bit since I first wandered in here. But one of the things that has been a key factor in turning away from conservatism/libertarianism was my faith. The ideas of helping the poor, assisting the community (whether directly by charity or indirectly through government programs), shedding some of your material wealth, and loving your fellow man are things that seem to be in lockstep with the progressive movement. Contrast this to the idea of the Ayn Rand Candy Land world, where helping the poor is considered "communism" and the epitome of society is how much money and power you can grab up. This, to me seems far flung from the Christianity I was brought up with. There's an old post on DU that deals with this same idea.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/02/10/12_christian.html

Do I simply have the blinders on and I'm not seeing the problems with that or are there others with a similar line of thought?

Oh, and merry Christmas and have a happy new year. :)

[endless october]

1. yes.

i'm liberal and a Christian.

[rug]

2. Sure, but R/T is reliving the Enlightenment at the moment.

Try here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=291

[DeSwiss]

9. No one ever goes in there do they?

I just thought it was like a musty 'ol closet or something. Some place where we keep things for the holidays or for the Goodwill folks (I don't give shit to the Salvation Army, fucking bigots).


- So do you guys sing Kumbayah a lot in there???? {feigns interest to try to "seem sociable" during this the holiday period}

[rug]

11. Nice sig.

[murielm99]

12. I go there.

So do some other very nice and very intelligent people. Post there and you will meet them.

[Meshuga]

18. I have surprisingly had a bad experience in that group

Someone in there had a personal problem with me so he called me out about my R/T posts in a really nasty and unfair way. I saw it and obviouly replied. By default, I was the douchebag because I was not part of the clique. So while I like and admire many liberal Christians who post here in R/T I choose not to read the threads in that group.

[54anickel]

21. So sorry to hear that Meshuga. Heck, I can't understand how your R/T posts would even be

considered "deserving" (for lack of a better phrase) of that type of "calling out" response.
All your posts that I've encountered have been helpful and respectful to both sides.

[Meshuga]

23. The poster had a personal issue with me

And lumped me in a reply to a complaint thread stating that I'm one of the Jews who sided with the "mean atheists" when attacking Christians/Christianity in R/T. But I am pretty comfortable with my record here of actually defending Christians and not being anti-Christian.

At the time I was pretty upset that I was being called out and defended myself when I saw the post. Someone who claimed to be one of the members who helped start the group had the good sense of getting the sub thread deleted but not before being passive aggressive and not so warm in making it seem like I was the trouble maker. It felt like I was unwelcome. My limited participation in that group had always been friendly and positive and it kind of sucks that someone calling me out would stick so easily. But it happens.

[54anickel]

25. I do vaguely remember being in a discussion with you once that involved another

poster that was a bit, shall we say "testy". I can't say I remember the jist of the discussion, who was involved, or whether it was here in R/T or in the "Christian" forum.
I've always enjoyed our discussions together. :hug:

[Meshuga]

58. As I have said in the past

I've always enjoyed our discussions together as well. :-)

[TexasProgresive]

3. Sure but few have the stomach to post at this forum. n/t

[madrchsod]

4. after putting 4 people on ignore today....

i`m wondering about even replying to any posts dealing with religion. there`s some really nasty replies to those who have a religious viewpoint.

one would expect them to respect one`s belief if one respects theirs but some can`t accept that.

[jwirr]

15. As a Christian and a Liberal I ignore this sight. When I first came to

this board we could actually talk about our faith and how it effected our political life style. Now every thread ends up being turned into a put down so I ignore them. My religion is personal so I leave it that way. But if you are reading any of my other posts behind those thoughts are the things I believe in. I would not be a liberal if I did not have faith.

[47of74]

16. There's plenty of idiots inhabiting my ignore list right now

Who turned every freaking post on religion - especially Catholicism - in to a way to put down others and look down their noses at people who don't believe as they do.

[rd_kent]

35. You confuse the respect for your RIGHT to believe with respect for your belief.

I think it is safe to sat we ALL respect your right to believe whatever you want, but no one needs to respect your actual beliefs.

[theophilus]

5. I'm still here, still liberal and still a Christian.

Christianity is not tolerated in most threads with some advocating that killing Christians is an ok sort of thing. Broad brushes and intolerance. I still have hope, though. Thanks for asking.

Indeed, I think that simple Christian values are found in the basic Liberal ideology that I follow.

[angryfirelord]

8. That's what I'm afraid of

The first time I came here, I really was taken aback at how rude some of the posts were. True, there is some need to be thick-skinned when it comes to political and religious discussions, but it always seems to be a very unbalanced viewpoint here. DU isn't some small board either, it's pretty well known and it gets a lot of traffic. To me, the religious bashing simply perpetuates the false view that liberals and atheists are intolerant to other groups. It's basically giving people like Michael Savage a handout in that it allows one group of people to be a representative sample of everybody here.

It's a shame too because all of my atheist/agnostic friends have always been very kind to me, even when religious discussions crop up. What goes on here isn't how religious and non-religious people work outside of here, but to a potential liberal convert who may be sick of the GOP or conservatism, this section could be a real turn-off. But at least it's good that I'm not the only one who feels the same way.

[DeSwiss]

10. I call bullshit.

"Christianity is not tolerated in most threads with some advocating that killing Christians is an ok sort of thing..."

- Post the link please.

[Meshuga]

19. Bullshit indeed

It is funny (or actually sad) how the dramatic responses transform into this kind of claim.

[DeSwiss]

24. Christians have this martyrdom complex down pat....

...and to which they will immediately fall back onto whenever the conversation gets too rational and/or too specific (any place where facts are relevant). And they will often project outwardly onto their detractors, all those very worst of traits that they themselves are more likely to have committed or are to be found within their own ranks -- at those who challenge their pie-eyed assumptions and fantastical legends and myths.

- The poor, poor murdering babies.....

[Christa]

20. Nonsense

Provide evidence, please.

I am so sick and tired of Christians pretending to be persecuted.

[DeSwiss]

26. Christa, I was perusing....

...http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-many-has-god-killed-complete-list.html">that old website you posted a long time ago about Steve Wells who was then beginning to count all the murders of Yahweh he found in the bible - their "holy" book. When you first posted it he wasn't finished, but he has since. He rounded the number to approximately 30 MILLION. And those are just the ones documented in the bible. Thirty million people that the god of Adam, Abraham and Moses, and who later (we are told in their NT version of that holy tome, and expected to believe), that he became known later as Jesus -- this is the d00d who was responsible for over 30,000,000 deaths just in the bible alone. Wiki Answers puts it at only http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Not_counting_Noah%27s_Deluge_How_many_has_God_kill_in_the_Bible">2,270,971, but they don't count the deluge.

And that doesn't even start counting all the thefts of property, the rapes, the pedophilia, the torture and the killings that Constantine's religious lottery winners (The Church) killed all by themselves in the name of their god. All the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt">witch-hunts and the http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/inquisition.html">sodomy-hunts. You know you've hit the BIGTIME in religion when you have to setup a separate office just to handle all the tortures and killings that your organization is handling generating. Obviously good documentation skills are important so that others -- in the future -- will see just how important and mighty you were. And so it should not boggle anyone's mind that even today, their top holy-man still has the humongous gonads to say that:

"The nations of Latin America and the Caribbean" were silently longing to receive Christ as their savior. He was the unknown God whom their ancestors were seeking, without realizing it. Colonization by Spain and Portugal was not a conquest, but an "adoption of the Indians" through baptism, making their cultures fruitful and purifying them. Accordingly, the proclamation of Jesus and of his Gospel did not at any point involve an alienation of the pre-Columbian cultures, nor was it the imposition of a foreign culture." http://www.counterpunch.org/jones05182007.html">Pope Benedict XVI

Yeah. Right. You were are "ADOPTED" (so quit yer bitchin!) So we can clearly see here that ALL the indigenous peoples of the New World just couldn't wait to see their Jesus. They were positively LONGING to see him so much that many "chose" to die right then and there because he was such a wonderful "savior." But let's not dwell on such things, aw right?

Some estimate the number of genocidal murdering of this Holy Organization, of all non-believers at around 50,000,000 when you include all the deaths of pagans from Scandinavia, the Huns, the Goths, the Celts, the Franks, and the Visigoths of Europe. Then there were all the ones helped onto their travels to heaven by the Portuguese and Spanish in their quest for dominance of the peoples who lived in the Far East, present-day Indonesia, India, Pacific Islanders; and of course the numerous deaths attributed to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requerimiento">Requerimiento's implementation in the Americas. Some, like our friend Steve above did with the bible, have http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2002/10/how-many-people-have-been-killed-by.php">begun to catalog those killings and atrocities as well.

- So now. What was the OP's question again? You know, with the kind of reputation as a murderer of his creations that he's got, you have to wonder what ever made Yahweh think he was cutout for this god business to begin with.....

[Christa]

30. Thank you, DeSwiss

What gets to me is that there are still people who worship this murderous God. Still weep at his feet, still beg for forgiveness, still think it he the alpha and the omega and WORTHY of worship.

:banghead: :banghead:

ETA:

And then we, the atheists are scorned because we don't fall for it anymore ...

[rug]

31. "just the ones documented in the bible." Wow. I'm glad you find it a reliable document.

[darkstar3]

32. Weak tea, rug.

Your snark here boils down to the old argument that non-believers shouldn't use the Bible to argue with Christians because they don't believe in it. That argument never has made any sense.

To put it another way, it's not about reliability of the document, but rather pointing out to everyone the parts of the Bible that so many Christians attempt to ignore and gloss over. If the Bible reveals and describes God, as so many believers say it does, then ALL parts of the Bible that reveal and describe God must be taken into account.

Otherwise, you're having your cake and eating it too.

[rug]

33. So, do you agree that Yahweh killed 33,041,220 humans or do you not agree?

[darkstar3]

34. What an inanely stupid question!

Why? Because you are keenly familiar with the fact that I do not believe in any gods, including the God of the Bible, so there's no way I could agree that he did anything.

But YOU, rug, are a self-styled Catholic. You DO believe in the God of the Bible. So my question to you is:

Do you believe that Yahweh, the God of Bible, killed 30+ million people?

If not, why then was it written about him in the Bible?
If so, why do you continue to worship a murderer?

[rug]

37. I'll take that as a no.

[darkstar3]

38. Your dodge is anything but artful. n/t

[DeSwiss]

40. More of a Wiki guy, eh???

- Still, http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Not_counting_Noah%27s_Deluge_How_many_has_God_kill_in_the_Bible">2,270,971, is mighty impressive. And let me say that I find it so comforting and reassuring of the "truth" of my prior post, seeing how that it was that 30,000,000 number that you picked to scrutinize and challenge. And nothing else.

Speaks volumes.


on edit: Additional thoughts.

[Sal316]

80. So, you take it literally?

Interesting.

Seems like you and those you condemn have that in common.

[darkstar3]

81. It would be even more interesting

if one of you Bible believers would answer the questions in #34.

[uberllama42]

87. Do you agree that Ahab was captain of the Pequod or don't you? n/t

[DeSwiss]

42. Since much of it can be found....

...in the ancient story tracks upon pottery, and other ancient inscriptions. All the papyrus, marble-etched and the lamb-skinned stories we've found. Not to mention the pyramids were all these myths and the legends can be found of characters from far, far older civilizations than the puny little Christians, the copycat Romans or Abraham of Mess-O-Potamia-Land and his chosen-folk. So that the authenticity of these stories can be found in many sources from here to there, but well before the timeline of Jesus and Yahweh and his merry band of killer-angels and other assorted psychopaths. So the bible's take upon these stories is merely derivative. Just like many others. Their only difference (if there is any at all of note beyond the Ten Commandments and The Beatitudes), is in the luck of the draw.

Although the early Christian fathers tried their best to destroy all vestiges of these stories of olden times. Once having gotten their green card from Constantine, (among many, many others) they tortured and killed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia_of_Alexandria#Death">Hypathia and scraped her bones of her flesh and burned them, so that her students wouldn't steal them away, and try to honor her. Then they set the Library at Alexandria ablaze to try and destroy all its countless books and tomes and implements of knowledge so that they could throw humanity back into the darkness and muck and the mire from which we crawled. Even though this place was where many of the Church's First Elders (back in the daze when they weren't all that and a bag 'o chips), got their chops, such as Eusebius, Clement, Origen, Athanasius and Cyril -- all of the Alexandria and Greek schools - the Harvard and MIT of its day, as well as many others who later paid a price for their intelligence and knowledge. These same others whose authenticity was essential to the acceptance of many of the other "accepted" books of the bible's NT. Until these same individuals fell-out of favor with Constantine's company-line and were then branded heretics and given the boot for their non-acceptance of the silly Triune god idea, and their insistence upon the idea of reincarnation.

And so lest we find the proof to our suspicions that they were all just the duplicitous lying, thieving, murdering and charlatans and assholes that we already know instinctively that they were -- they tried to destroy all of the source(s) of all their "knowledge." And their arrogance shows even to this day in their abuses of our children and of women, and can so easily be seen in their haughty attitude of sanctimony that we would even deign to question them. And so with this cast of madmen and mutants who were responsible for its production, you assume that I believe this document (the bible) to be reliable? Ahh... no, I don't. The Church has produced nothing but power for themselves and mayhem for everyone else ever since their founding. So I'm afraid I cannot comply.

It was only due to the fact that copies of the Vedas, the stories of Enkidu and Gilgamesh of the Sumerian/Akkadians and the Egyptians -- all of them survived in other places. So as to put the lie to these allusion toward grandeur of philosophy. It isn't even their philosophy. It is a story too big for the little pea-brained religionists that we've evolved today. They are also all stories which pre-date the Torah and certainly the NT, and yet they are really all telling the same zodiac and planet-inspired/ruled stories. Since we first looked up into the sky -- there has really only been one story. It's all the same story. A story about the SUN that gives us life.

http://www.archive.org/details/biblemythsandthe00doanuoft">

All this is without question. On the other hand however, is the question of the veracity of the bible as being an original work in its own right. Supposedly generated by "Jews" and "Christians." Something that I could only describe generously as being "a load." In other words, the Jews and Christians embellished the work of others with their own shit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretism">Syncretism is a fact of life. So is outright THEFT.

And BTW, I never said I found the document reliable. Just that http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-many-has-god-killed-complete-list.html">Steve Wells used it for his project of Yahweh Murder Counting.

- Although I will say that I admire his work ethic in compiling such a wonderful list of murderous mayhem, that is Judaism's and Christianity's true hallmark. Their Main Claim To Fame......


http://www.archive.org/details/biblemythsandthe00doanuoft">

For those unafraid of the scales falling from their eyes: http://www.archive.org/details/biblemythsandthe00doanuoft">Bible Myths and Parallels in Other Religions

on edit: spelling

[angryfirelord]

47. So your basis for numbers

is based on speculation from blog posts and anti-Christian sites, all the while painting all Christians with broad brush strokes based on past sins that most Christians wouldn't do today? Come now DeSwiss, surely you can do better.

To illustrate why I believe you're wrong with that statement, I can pull information from another biased site.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atrocities.html#Fyl7ZVHtfkWe

By their conclusions, I could state that atheistic regimes are the cause of all of those killings (and thus be able to pull some guesstimated large number). But we know this isn't true because much of people lies on political intolerance, governmental problems, and possibly a misleading census. Why couldn't similar issues hold true back then? It's impossible to say because those events took place so long ago.

[DeSwiss]

48. Another example of tunnel-vision.....

...and/or selective reading I see. No, my "basis" is not about the numbers of dead bodies. The numbers are irrelevant. One murder of His creations is more than enough. In fact, it is an atrocity for an All-Perfect-All-Knowing-All-Seeing-All-Smelling-On-All-The-Time-Creator-God. And you'll forgive me if I don't accept your definition of sites such as the one's I've pointed to here, as "anti" anything. I suppose DU would be an "anti" Republican site all right. We tend to see ourselves as more PRO something rather than anti. But in politics everyone expects that there are sides. Although its not quite suppose to be that way in your religious world, now is it? Only one of them is supposed to be right. Otherwise, what's all the hub-bub and killing everybody all about, eh?

No, my prejudice is against ignorance. Religion is used primarily as a tool against those who are ignorant of the facts needed in order to make rational and reasoned decisions. Religion is a tool that is used to influence people into making emotional decisions based upon religious fealty, ad hominem arguments, or just pure bullshit stories that have been twisted every which-way in order for people to give others their power and decision-making rights. And their money. So anytime anyone is expected to accept the blatant lie of an idea that Judaism and Christianity's so-called theological presence does not rest upon the shoulders of much older religious beliefs, rituals and symbiology, then one is being willfully ignorant if the information is there and that person chooses not to avail themselves of it. And it is this which I abhor. Why? Because I believe that all religionists (people who depend upon faith and and are "anti-reason") have a greater responsibility to know what the hell they're talking about and what their religion is all about. Especially when one considers the fact that their opposite the "non-believer" is the least respected and last called upon for public service, and yet they still somehow engender http://bhascience.blogspot.com/2009/12/atheism-increases-trust.html">greater confidence and trust as opposed to the religious of this world.

And I've found over the years that what is more often the case, is that religionist of every stripe have a similar attitude about their beliefs in-commom: they seem prepared to ignore reason in all aspects of their religious life, but nowhere else. Because the moment that you begin to apply the same requirements of reason, the same rigor for seeking truth, and demand a true and objective view of the history of one's religion, if you are an honest person, then you cannot maintain that position once you've learned the truth. After learning the truth, to do so creates an insurmountable mountain of cognitive dissonance. And you are either going to acknowledge that this mountain is there, or you'll ignore it and the truth to retain your fantasy and hold onto the belief that all its little stories were written just so that you could sing in a heavenly choir for eternity. Which I personally happen to think has got to be the most boring "reward" given -- EVER.

I have never quite understood how it is that religionists who claim that their philosophy and religious views are so important to them, and to EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS, and yet they don't know two cents about their beliefs. I mean at least in the church they'll get some prejudiced and slanted versions thrown at them each Sunday, but many don't even seem to know those!!! They don't know its doctrines and how they got that way. They don't know its its history -- of its wars and intrigues and murders and plots. They know almost NOTHING from whence their religion came. Only what their parents told them or that spurious pap that they blather-out each week along with their propaganda appeals "FOR MORE MONEY." And worse: in Christianity's particular case, how hateful, racist, misogynist, malevolent and pure D. hellish a force that it has been on this earth for so many. All ignored. If this were any other secular organization with the kind of history the Church has of murder rapes, pedophilia and general mayhem that the church has -- would you join it? I would hope not.

Most religionists are easily prepared to overlook all this. Just ignore the hell out of it. Ignore their blatant principles of "holiness" that fly in the face of democracy. Suggesting that religionists cannot be trusted with the controls of democracy and of civil rights that they seem so prepared to give away to their King. And not when they are prepared to give them away or to do the bidding at the behest of some white-collared asshat who has never even gotten laid. Or if he did once, and he was terrible at it because he's probably secretly been gay all his life, and in denial about it. And yet so many still hang onto this pap as though it were some kind of enlightened philosophy. Its BULLSHIT and I call it for what it is. Its BULLSHIT for any belief to say that women are less than men and have less rights to decide what happens to their bodies. Its BULLSHIT for any belief to claim it knows the mind of god and that their particular god is perfect and yet creates people who are decidedly imperfect from their perspective. And even were these things somehow true, what the hell does someone's being gay, or a woman having an abortion have anything to do with you? Or me? Or with the goddamned Church? With any religion? If you believe that god gave us all FREE WILL. Then why can't we use it? Its not FREE WILL if no one gets to use it, is it?

Religionists that claim to seek answers, that claim they believe themselves to be on a journey in life in search of peace but can only do so by ignoring reality, are not people I like making decision that affect me. Whether so-called friends or foes. Religion is not peaceful. It may contains words about peace, but they are just words. Its takes people to make peace -- not any god. Which is why no religion should ever been depended upon as a focus or a reason for peace or a belief in morality. It shouldn’t be the only thing that imbues morality upon someone. A person morality should be able to stand on its own. On the basis of a person's own "evolved humanity." Because within this bible or any of these so-called holy books -- they are no magic solutions to be found. There are no incantations, no prayers that will do the trick. They are all just another rendition of someone else's fireside stories told from millenniums back about the stars and the orbs that plotted the lives of everyone with its sun and moon as our guides, who later became our gods. And of course they added their stupid little tales of their heroes who also become somehow holy and "of god." Yeah right. And yet no matter how tightly one holds one’s eyes closed to this reality, when the are opened again, the truth will still be there.

The http://www.archive.org/details/biblemythsandthe00doanuoft">link you needed to click is the other one I left above. Its just a starting point, but a very good one for someone who is sincere about knowing. But if you're only prepared to mumble the words and do as others instruct you to, then this is not for you.

- In real life, you always have to go at it without a net.....

on edit: spelling

[angryfirelord]

46. Depends on where you go

In the US, you're right. But go and look at how religious freedom compares to other parts of the world. Want to set up a church in China? It'd better be underground, or the government will shut you down.

There have been Christians who committed acts of violence, but the vice versa is also true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians

[uberllama42]

22. Your false accusation that people here advocate murder doesn't help discussion

You can't expect to come to a discussion forum and declare your ideas immune from criticism. Furthermore, you can't make bullshit claims like some advocat(e) that killing Christians is an ok sort of thing. If you want to talk about respect and what kind of rhetoric fosters discussion, you can't piss in the well like that.

[DeSwiss]

28. +1

[54anickel]

60. Well stated. n/t

[gopiscrap]

6. I am one

I am the chair of a peace and justice project in Tacoma, Washington

[Rowdyboy]

7. A few of us, here and there

[OHdem10]

13. yes

[roguevalley]

14. yes, though my Christianity is evolving and more in line with the

historical man and his mission as an rabbi with a great purpose. I love God and have changed in my view of him, from a paternalistic deity to a deity of love and great compassion that doesn't require as much odd ball structure as man seems to think.

[Betty Karlson]

17. Don't know if you would consider me a "liberal" Christian...

I consider myself to be immoderately moderate.

[54anickel]

27. Wow, had to go back all the way back to 2002 for that one. Thanks for the

link. I haven't read it all yet....

[ZombieHorde]

29. I am not a Christian, but I do read the Christian forum from time to time.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

36. We're here, but most of us don't visit R/T on a routine basis

because there are a few posters who are just plain snarky.

[Silent3]

39. I suspect a lot of liberal Christians tend to keep their religion to themselves.

Part of that, at least as far as this forum is concerned, is that they might not enjoy the criticism of religion that occurs in this forum.

I'd guess there's a lot more to it than that, however. My sense is that, for a lot of liberal Christians, their religious beliefs are a personal thing that they don't want to or like to talk about a lot. Someone pointed out a separate forum here on DU specifically for liberal Christians. I took a look at it, and it doesn't seem very busy.

When it comes to their political views, discussed in other forums on DU, there must be many liberal Christians posting here, but they apparently don't often announce that they are speaking as liberal Christians, they just speak about whatever issues are at hand, and voice their positions in secular language.

[Dorian Gray]

50. It's not the criticism that bothers me

in the R/T forum. It's more the constant repetitive nature. Everything that's being said in this thread has been said, ad infinitim, for years.

The arguments are redundant and boring.

[Silent3]

53. I don't think that can be helped.

If this were the Sasquatch forum it would always be a valid question, "Where's your proof that Sasquatch exists?". Until that question gets a good answer, all other topics, like discussions of territorial displays, mating habits, best protection against Sasquatch attacks, etc., can rightly be considered a bit absurd.

I can see how a Sasquatch believer who considers the existence of Sasquatch an already-settled question, who wants to move on to "serious" discussions about the nature of Sasquatch, might find repeated demands for proof annoying or tedious, but that wouldn't make those demands for proof uncalled for.

[JerseygirlCT]

83. +1

[rd_kent]

86. Thats because there are so many that just don't get it.

[54anickel]

41. Curious Angryfirelord, how did you happen to uncover that DU article from 2002? Oh, and feel free to

tell me it's none of my f*ing business...

[angryfirelord]

44. Google is my friend

I don't know, I was just poking around and it happened to come up in my search. Thought it was neat and I decided to share it here. :)

[54anickel]

52. Thanks, I thought you might have some connection to the original poster. I looked for

the original thread, found a thread referring to you posted "editorial" instead. Maybe DU didn't allow replies directly to editorial pieces back then. Anyway, it was a much more civilly discussed topic back then. Quite a difference 7 years have made.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=7598&forum=DCForumID38&archive=yes

[skepticscott]

43. So why do you need "faith"

to get you to help the poor, assist the community, shed some of your material wealth, and love your fellow man? Can't you be a good person without religious silliness?

[angryfirelord]

45. Of course

I'm not suggesting that being an atheist/agnostic/whatever somehow takes away from that. I'm stating that the core message of Christianity relates to the progressive movement rather than the other way around.

While this could be satire since it's Conservapedia, it does illustrate my point in that the need to revise aspects of those teachings in order to be more "conservative compatible" shows that conservatism isn't compatible with Christianity as the fundamentalists make it out to be. http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

[skepticscott]

49. The core message of Christianity

Is that Jesus died to redeem the sins of the world and that everyone who accepts him as their savior will get the whole eternal life thngie, and those who don't, won't. Not sure what in the world that has to do with a progressive political agenda, and the inventors of Christianity certainly didn't originate the idea of goodwill and charity towards your fellow man.

[54anickel]

51. I'd beg to differ, that may be what's it has been morphed into by a powerful few but that was not

the original teaching or understanding of Christianity and the "followers of the way". That is a relatively new understanding, in the scheme of things. Especially the notion of acceptance on the individual's part - that's "the American way", individualism to the core.

There are many messages, meanings and understanding of Christianity. Most mirror progressive political ideology. The message you cited just gets the most "air time" in search of converts to the fear based "talibornagain".

[skepticscott]

54. And what exactly was

"the original teaching or understanding of Christianity"? The earliest roots of the Christian church involved so many different sects and beliefs that I defy you to describe any "original teaching". As far as what I cited being a relatively new understanding, it's drawn from the Bible itself, so exactly how new are you saying it is?

And who are these "powerful few" that you're referring to? The majority of Christians in this country are conservative, fundamentalist and literalist, so it's blatently untrue that most people's version of Christianity mirrors progressive political ideology. The truth is that "liberal" Christians have morphed their religion into something matching their political bent, arrogantly assuming that their interpretation of the Bible must be more correct, since it's warmer and fuzzier.

[54anickel]

55. I believe that was the point. Theirs is not some authoritative belief. There really is none that

we can specifically trace back to. That's why there's so much diversity/contradictions in the Bible and other early "Christian" writings. By "new", I mean it certainly couldn't be derived from many of the early theologians writings, (Alexandrian in particular since that's where my interests hence familiarity are, Origen being one of my favorites). They were once the majority of theology schools. Of course many of those were later labeled heretics by Augustine.

The "majority of Christians"? Are you sure they aren't just the most vocal, most televised, giving the sense of majority? I've not seen actual numbers, not even sure how you'd come up with a count for "conservative, fundamentalist, literalist" followers? I do think you're on to something about peoples understanding of religion being morphed into something that matches one's "political bent"...I can see that happening on all sides. Perhaps that's why you cling so tightly to wanting to label Christianity itself as conservative, fundamentalist and literalist.

Peace to you. :hi: Didn't want to start a war, just begging to differ (obviously not allowed)

[rd_kent]

56. "Didn't want to start a war, just begging to differ (obviously not allowed)" - Hahaha!

what a crock of shit. You posted something that appeared to be false and you got called on it AND had it explained to you why it was false. Then you have the audacity to say that having a differing opinion is not allowed? Wow, just wow.

Did you just expect your opinion to go unchallenged, especially if someone thought it was wrong?

[skepticscott]

57. As far as the majority figures are concerned,

polls consistently show that 40-50% of ALL Americans (not just Christians) believe that God created the world essentially as it is, less than 10,000 years ago. That's about as fundamentalist and literalist as it gets. That translates to a majority (though not an overwhelming one) of people who identify as Christians of some type believing that.

[54anickel]

59. But couldn't that possibly be due to this "brand" of Christianity that is getting so much

air time and publicity? Seems to me from your statement that it is not the understanding of 50-60% of Americans. I know it's not the prevalent understanding of most of the Christians that I associate with (although they are VERY conservative politically).

Some folks are "seekers", trying to find some meaning for their hectic, rat-race, chasing the Almighty buck, lives. They're looking for something more than just existence. Some seek the easy answers, someone to tell them what to do, what to believe, trying to make sense of it all. Easy prey for these mega-churches that profess to have all of the answers, that lift their "spirits" and self-confidence in being part of the "in crowd" (you're in, everybody else is out). It's an extremely sad situation when you get right down to it.

I wish there was an easy answer. I don't exactly appreciate being lumped in with the "fundamentalist" crowd.

(edit for spelling)

[skepticscott]

61. Well, no it couldn't

These polls are not based on the amount of airtime and publicity that different flavors of Christianity get, so why do you keep suggesting something so idiotic? They are based on asking individuals what they think about creationism/evolution. And yes...Biblical literalists make up just under a majority of Americans, but since not all Americans are Christian, they do make up a majority of Christians. Do the math.

As far as your personal experience with the Christians you associate with...meaningless. And sorry if you don't like being associated with fundies. They make up the majority of Christians in this country and they wield essentially all of the political power. They ARE the face of your religion, whether you like it or not.

[54anickel]

62. My idiotic suggestion is that people can be desperate and gullible and that is

how they've come to believe what you and I both rail against (though from different angles).

It is a shame that we cannot have a meaningful conversation about the existence of a more liberal religion. These discussions tend to digress down the same path. Liberal christians trying to differentiate themselves from the fundamentalists and non-christians trying to lump them all together. Both sides feeling pressured to defend their opinions.

I do appreciate the opportunity to attempt a discussion though. Thank you.

[skepticscott]

63. Well, a meaningful conversation

about the existence of a more liberal religion would entail me asking why, if you're not taking the Bible literally, but simply picking and choosing to adhere to the parts you like and ignore the parts you don't, why you need the Bible or religion at all. Why not just live the life you've already got in mind, instead of trying to infuse it with supernatural beliefs that cannot be justified? Or why not just admit that the tenets of organized religion are really pretty silly, but that you go through the ritual because it gives you an emotional security blanket?

[54anickel]

64. Actually, I read the Bible as I would any other collection of various forms of literature.

I also prefer to read it keeping in mind the context that it was written. I don't tend to infuse my mind with supernatural beliefs, and I think we use our reason to pick and choose what we adhere to in all facets of life - why should reading the Bible be any different? I rely on reason to provide authority and guidance in my life, but I'm open to allowing some mystery to reside in my life as a holding place for things that I cannot yet understand by reason alone.

I lean more toward a liberation theological understanding, so I tend to embrace the notion of "radicalness" of the early Jesus movement against the empire of Rome under Caesar Augustus. The "in your face" taunts of Jesus is Lord, implying Caesar is not. (Reminds me of the "Get out of Al's house" chants directed at Boosh)

I'll agree that for the most part the tenets of organized religion can be pretty silly, but I also draw a lot from the sense of community there. Despite our differences in political ideology, we can come together in a common cause to worship something outside of ourselves. We can come together to serve needs in our extended community. That gives me hope that we can someday come together to do even greater things for a common good instead of ourselves.

Relationships with others is what gives me meaning to my life - I can only stand so much navel gazing. Mostly, my involvement in organized religion is to participate in the corporate worship of god. Often times, I find myself distanced from god. It's in this corporate worship that I am sure god can find me.

I know, sounds like pie in the sky and all. Sure beats beating each other up all the time or surrounding ourselves with people just like us participating in group-think. Besides, I'm an Al-Anon member - it just doesn't work without me having some understanding of a higher power (I suppose that could be taken as a security blanket.)



(edit for spelling/typos again - keep forgetting to run spell check before hitting post)

[Meshuga]

70. I could be wrong, of course

But a lot of the positions against liberal Christianity seem to assume that to be a Christian the person needs to see the bible as infallible and then liberal Christians are accused of picking and choosing what is valid and what is not based on this assumption. Well, I am sure that many of these liberal Christians like yourself have agreed here in this forum that the bible was not written with 21st century values so it, at times, falls short of its own moral expectations.

But people have to realize that there is a whole school of liberal Christian thought and way of life that came out of (even if you call it nitpicked) biblical teachings besides different evolutions Christianity went through up to this point as a consequence of new thinkers. There are people who adhere to this in the same way Buddhists adhere to their philosophy, Jews to their own, humanists to their own, etc. And there are people who find it all stupid and take other approaches. But in the end, what is stupid to some works for others and vice-versa. I just don't know what is the big deal in people choosing their own way of living their lives. However, I could see it being a big deal when there is a drive to lump all Christians together.

However, while fundamentalists and liberal Christians all share the same holy book and background they obviously follow different Christianities and have sets of values that are foreign to each other. One seem to focus on the acceptance of Jesus as a savior in order to achieve salvation and ignores anything progressive. The other use it as a guide to being good and kind human beings and giving their lives meaning. Even when that does not mean that these concepts are exclusive to Christianity or that Christianity originated these ideas. It just means that Liberal Christians adhere to their religion because they feel it works for them.

At least that is how I see it.

[54anickel]

75. Can't disagree with anything there Meshuga. Would just add another problem with

lumping all Christians (or any "divided" group) is that you inflate the numbers giving the group even more power and clout than they've already claimed for themselves. By making absolute type statements of what Christians "believe in" (there's that phrase again!) you actually propogate that message. While one may think doing so will convince people to agree with them as to how "stupid" it is, it instead strengthens the message that there is only "one way"for many. People that hold a more fundamentalist belief system tend to close their mind. If they'd been sitting on the fence, logic will tend to push them over to the side they've been getting indoctrinated to. The vocal leaders of mega-churches with money and air-time use such anti-talk to fire up their base to be even more diligent in their fundamentalism, evangelism and making $$$ contributions.

THAT is my issue with lumping all sects of ANY religion together. I'm into history, so I'd rather discuss when and how this latest flavor of decision based, rapture-ready, destroy the earth end-times theology started and how it floated to the top. Or a discussion on the differences in various religions and theologies. How did we end up with so many different Christianities? Is this fracturing the beginning of the end? I think it may be, hence the rise of fundamentalism. What will this "post-christianity" look like? The discussions here have become somewhat repetitive, rehashing the same shit.

Thanks again for adding to the discussion, Meshuga.

[Meshuga]

68. If we look further

Instead of just accepting the surface in order to link the dots so closely to keep a world view, we can see that education has also a big influence on whether a person (affiliated to a church or not) accepts things like creationism and other popular beliefs.

I don't think that just because most Americans believe in biblical creation it means this "creation accepting" chunk is comprised of all religious people. Perhaps some people hold this belief in the same way that people believe that "knocking on wood" would keep something bad from happening. It is something that sticks as popular beliefs. And the popular belief prevails without the appropriate education.

[54anickel]

69. Yes, thank you Meshuga. Our social location has a lot to do with it and I tend to see some

popular beliefs being carefully propagated as a form of control - some to unite, others to divide. But without appropriate education and some critical thinking skills applied we tend to end up dealing with the shit that floats to the surface, never getting to the root cause or to recognize the possibility of manipulation.

Of course, I have issues with this whole notion of "belief" to begin with.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

71. Thank you, Meshuga, for your courteous and reasonable response

You most decidedly are not a meshugena.

[struggle4progress]

74. It's interesting how often atheists lecture us about whatr the atheists think we believe

[darkstar3]

78. There's no such thing

as a "core message of Christianity."

For proof of this, see here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x223070

[54anickel]

65. Heh-heh, did you catch Andy Schlafly on the Colbert Report?

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/258144/december-08-2009/andy-schlafly

That guy's thought process is scary! Jesus was a Free-marketer? I suppose anything is possible...

[angryfirelord]

66. I must've missed that one

Yikes! I can't tell if he's trying to play the world's biggest practical joke or if he's dead serious about what he's saying. Colbert certainly hit the nail on the head with the coat line.

[54anickel]

67. It's actually linked to the conservapedia site you posted

http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

snip>

The Conservative Bible Project is a project utilizing the "best of the public" to render God's word into modern English without liberal translation distortions. Beginners can pick any verse, type its citation into <1>, click on "SHOW STRONG'S" at the top right to obtain the Greek, and then edit a book in the chart (lower right). A Colbert Report interview featured this project.<1>


:crazy:

[Sal316]

92. You don't "need" faith...

...that's a strawman argument.

Have fun with that one.

[rd_kent]

72. Kick

[knitter4democracy]

73. I used to read and post here more.

It's been a really rough year (divorce and crap), and I just haven't been here as much. Honestly, when I'm already down from yet another legal fight or another problem with my kids' dad's new wife, I don't like to come here and read a bunch of crap saying I'm stupid or crazy. One of the last times I was in here, I was asked why I even still believe after what I've been through, and while I thought it a sincere question, some of the follow-up posts were disrespectful and just plain nasty. I get enough of that from my ex and his new wife, thanks.

[Meshuga]

77. So I have good reason to wish you a great 2010!

Well, two reasons: 1)- you need it and 2)- it would be nice to have you back. :-)

Happy New Year!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

79. Oh gee, Knitter

If the colon/semicolon key on my laptop weren't broken, I'd put up a "hug" smiley.

[Silent3]

89. Not that you'd want to do this too often...

...but if you're desperate to type something and a broken key is in the way, you can always find the character you like on a page somewhere and copy/paste that character.

Also, Windows has a Character Map utility where you can click on any characters you need, and Mac OS has a Character Palette for doing the same thing.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

90. Actually, I can also use a separate USB keyboard

when I'm at my desk as opposed to in the living room.

:-)

which is how I created that smiley-face up there.

[Silent3]

91. And such a beautiful smile it is.

We wouldn't want a bad keyboard to get in the way of such radiance. ;)

[JerseygirlCT]

84. Sorry it's been so rough for you

It sounds like a very tough time. I totally understand your reasoning. Why add to your problems with nonsense that you'd do better without? I haven't spent much time here myself...

[uberllama42]

88. I'm sorry to hear you've had a rough time.

Best wishes for the new year.

[BolivarianHero]

76. Dunno...

What I do know is that I don't believe in God but have more respect for liberation theology and for the social gospel movement than I have for atheists like Bill Gates or Ayn Rand.

[JerseygirlCT]

82. A few of us

But this particular forum has gotten more than a little tiresome, unfortunately. People far more interested in ranting and receiving pats on the back for it than in dialogue or conversation.

And yes, like you I was raised to believe that the heart of Christianity - as with most religions - is to care for our fellow human beings.

[wryter2000]

85. I used to check in more than I do now

At the time, I considered myself an agnostic. I often tried to prove to the Christians that not all people without faith were narrow-minded and that we could respect faith even if we didn't share it.

After enough assertions from the evangelical atheists that the faith I'd been raised in amounted to no more than brainwashing and fantasy and that my faith was responsible for all the ills of the world, I'd had enough. For years, I'd put up with the Christian right misrepresenting my former faith, and I was now hearing the same kind of nonsense from the other side. I was sick of both sides lying about my faith.

So, I decided to go back to church to rediscover where I'd come from. I discovered I liked it a whole lot. I've been going back ever since. I'm now on the altar guild at my church, and I truly love that work.

I still haven't decided how much faith I can muster in things that can't be proved, but I now consider myself a Christian, and in large part, I can thank the atheists here for that.

So, happy holidays to everyone.