"But what about the moderates?"

[xpastor]

Yes you're right, I didn't literally mean it, I was taking it to extremes partly for my own amusement and to hammer home my ludicrous points. I'd rather live in a world with moderates than radicals any day.

I was narrating from the point of view of a God looking down at his followers, finding these moderates to not be quite the ticket.

OK. Gotcha. If the deity in charge is the sort of god imagined by the fundies, one who wrote a book free from all historical and scientific errors (), who used that book to show his loving-kindness with a list of atrocities which he either ordered or personally committed, naturally a god like that would be pissed off at those cherry-picking liberals who only want to pay attention to the warm and fuzzy texts.

[robvalue]

Yeah, they'd be rubbing shoulders with us!

I find it a bit hard to grasp, this moderation. It's like you kind of believe in it, but not "too seriously", to like, you know, pay any attention to it. Not like those crazy people who actually really believe it.

[Whateverist]

Re the OP:

If the first shall be last and the last shall be first I guess the moderates would go in the middle. My 2¢ worth. (You're welcome.)

---

If some powerful genie offered me a choice between converting all the fundamentalists to moderate religion or converting all the moderate religionists to atheism, I would choose the frst option in a heartbeat.

You are really motivated to keep the flock happy, aren't you? I'd probably choose the same. I think people should choose their own misery, if and when they're ready. If they want to live this life closer to the surface, who am I to say they shouldn't?

[Mister Agenda]

Saudi Arabia is a case study for why religion, government, and the law should never ride in the same cart.

And also a case study of how keeping the oil flowing matters more to America than any supposed moral considerations.

[Vicki Q]

...
"Moderates" within a faith, I would argue, are those who have watered down their religion with foreign elements such as science or personal conscience. These accommodations to modernity and compassion are difficult if not impossible to square with scripture or, in some cases, with the very tenets of the faith...

For example, a Christian might accept evolution but then he/she must explain what the story of Eden was all about. If it was just a metaphor, then what is Jesus dying to save us from, since the "fall" must also be metaphoric. If Eve was a real person, produced by evolution, then how can we square this with the Christian tenet that death entered the world by sin, which happened by Eve. If Eve brought sin and therefore death into the world, how did evolution produce her without death (a key component in the process of evolution). And what are we to make of passages of the Gospels where Jesus expressed a literal belief in a literal Adam and a literal Noah's Ark?

Either the Bible IS the Word of God or it is NOT the Word of God.
Either the Koran IS the Word of God or it is NOT the Word of God.
There is no "sorta kinda" option with divine revelation.
....

I wonder if I might open certain questions here, without wishing to self-apply any labels.

Firstly, the suggestion that 'moderate' beliefs are “watered down” religion. If I believe that a particular worldview that includes non-fundi religion best represents reality, then that is a 'full strength' religious belief, surely. A weather forecast that doesn't include record shattering weather predictions isn't a watered down weather forecast, but a best attempt at describing partly unknowable reality.

The story of Eden is probably the beginning of the biblical meta-narrative of sin-exile-forgiveness-restoration that runs through both the OT and NT like letters in a stick of rock.

The death of Jesus was to enable the restoration of God's creation through Israel and humanity. When you say “death entered the world by sin, which happened by Eve”, you return to a literalist reading that wouldn't be subscribed to by 'moderates'.

Either the Bible IS the Word of God or it is NOT the Word of God....There is no "sorta kinda" option with divine revelation.

Why not? Why is there an excluded middle? The Church Fathers believed that the Bible was true, but it would never have occurred to them to ask whether or not the events 'happened as written'. They were interested in what the truth of the passage was, and that is perhaps an approach Xians should rediscover...

[robvalue]

If it is partly the word of God, or partly true, we have absolutely no idea what parts are genuine and which are made up. So it's all worthless unless it can be checked against other sources. And the extraordinary claims cannot ever be verified. So why assign it any credibility over Harry potter?

---

The bible is all there is, in reality, of Christianity. So if you don't take that seriously, you're just making up whatever you want. Which is fine, but why call yourself a Christian and prop up the mental fundies?

Its a book of fairy tales mixed with a bit of history. There's not much more to say about it. If you find a few useful things in it, great. You can take them away without having to lump yourself in with the deluded.

[Whateverist]

The bible is all there is, in reality, of Christianity. So if you don't take that seriously, you're just making up whatever you want. Which is fine, but why call yourself a Christian and prop up the mental fun dies?

To take the bible seriously does not require taking it literally. In fact, the opposite would be a more serious, adult and educated approach. To study the bible as a text rather than as the revealed word of whatever is a much more reasonable approach.

Of course that makes it much harder to scoff at or ridicule. But maybe we'd do better to let sleeping straw men lie and address the best case for religion rather than the worst.

Its a book of fairy tales mixed with a bit of history. There's not much more to say about it. If you find a few useful things in it, great. You can take them away without having to lump yourself in with the deluded.

And when people do just this and say they find meaning in the fairy tales what then? Aren't they doing exactly as you suggest by taking what is useful? Of course many will then feel compelled to embrace and defend every scrap or phrase and that's a pity. But I would encourage the religious to take this approach.

[robvalue]

See if this story makes any sense:

I set up tests I knew you would fail, so I give you sin which passes through all your offspring forever. I then set up a place of eternal torture, where your offspring will go because of the sin I gave you. I don't want them to go there, but I won't just change my mind. Instead I will send myself down as a man, and sacrifice myself to myself. Then I can allow myself to change the rules I made so they don't go I to the hell I made for them. But only if they believe all this stuff without evidence.

Is that a coherent story? Or is it utter nonsense that teaches us nothing of value?

If you think it even "kinda" makes any sense or has any bearing on reality, I'm afraid you've been brainwashed and cannot think clearly about it.

---

Sure, I'd love to people to actually objectively evaluate the bible. But no Christian by definition has ever done this properly and remained a Christian. There is always circular logic, if you want to take away anything other than little stories and dodgy accounts of history.

The thing I don't get is if you're just saying the whole thing is mainly metaphor and "life guidance" then it's not a religion. So why label yourself as religious? Just say, "that's helpful".

---

One thing you should know about me though is I'm an anal little twat who always over analyses every little detail, way after everyone else has gone home. So best not pay too much attention to me. Ask my wife, she will confirm this.

[Whateverist]

But as strongly as I really think what I think, I still think other people are entitled to disagrees with what I think. You think?

[robvalue]

Of course. People can think whatever they like. I am also happy to be corrected when I am making mistakes.

But if someone wants to present what they think as something anyone else should consider, then they should be able to provide reason and evidence. If they cannot, they are asking us to arbitrarily take their word for something even if it contradicts things we already think we know.

I'm sorry if I ever come across as arrogant, I know that's a danger when being so critical all the time. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, in fact I fully expect a large proportion of people will. I hope I back up what I say with reason and evidence where appropriate, and if not I'm happy for that to be (constructively) pointed out.

---

I'm never assuming I'm always right. I just try the best with what I know.