Progressive Christianity

[cercatorius]

I have absolutely rejected the foundation of conservative Christianity. Most people who identify as Christian are unaware that their theological foundations are really, at most, several hundred years old. I understand many atheists do not draw a distinction between conservative Christianity and any other practice, but many of us do.

You do not seem to understand my meaning.  There are certainly plenty of people who are Christians of some sort, but reject part of the Bible, and some who pretend that taking the horrific stories as allegory somehow makes them nicer than they are (though they invariably fail to explain how one could take them as nice stories even if one does not take them literally).

If you throw out the Bible, from whence do you get any kind of "Christianity?"  What I am suggesting is, that without the texts that make up the Bible, there would be no Christianity at all.

...

It sounds like you're reading or referencing the bible with a similar application to conservative Christians - as a literal text.  It really isn't meant to be read that way. If there are specific sections you would like my feedback on with cultural and linguistic context in place, feel free to let me know. 

Take the fig tree story as a metaphor if you like.  How does that make Jesus into an admirable character?  What we have is a story of a grown man throwing a childish temper tantrum, who punishes an inanimate object for not doing what it could not possibly do.  Where is the good message in that?  How do you interpret the story to make Jesus into something other than a stupid childish fool?

And if we take the stories of Jesus condemning his enemies to torture for eternity as metaphor, again, what interpretation can you give those stories such that Jesus is not a vindictive asshole?

It is fine for you to tell me that they are not literally true.  But as mythical stories, they still portray Jesus as a despicable character.


That contrasts greatly with Odysseus in The Odyssey.  Odysseus, though an imperfect man, is still a heroic character who uses his intelligence to overcome extreme obstacles to achieve his honorable goals.  Odysseus is a much better character to emulate than Jesus.  Of course, this is myth, and virtually no one today regards The Odyssey as literally true.  But one can see the virtues of intelligence and perseverance and integrity displayed in Odysseus.  Even though one will never encounter the mythical obstacles that Odysseus faced, one can still emulate him with that being a good thing.  But emulating Jesus makes one a petty, vindictive, stupid, childish little twerp.

Hi Pyhhro - I agree with your logic, but I think I would apply it a little further back.  Perhaps it is conservative Christians who are (to borrow your example) proclaiming themselves Queen of England. Their theological tenets are relatively young, and actually at odds with much of what is in the bible when read with academic honesty.

If the Bible is read with academic honesty, one comes to the conclusion that is it just a collection of old books written by primitive savages, with no more insight than other primitive savages.  In other words, such a reading makes one not a Christian in any usual sense of the word.

According to you, what does the word "Christian" mean?

---

---

Interesting - I don't feel I've eliminated anything from the bible. I will agree that I refuse to put upon it things that it was never meant to bear. I feel that I take the bible more seriously than my conservative counterparts when I approach it with honesty and an eagerness to maintain it's context. The mythologies surrounding Christ's crucifixion and resurrection are pretty unique for their time in that they portray a God as a willing and forgiving victim, succumbing to humanity's need for a sacrifice - not the other way around - and in doing so, rejecting the role of sacrifice all together.  I definitely am a non-believer in the popular conservative Christian theology, and I kindly reject the idea that their is the only way to understand and incorporate Jesus into my beliefs. I appreciate your encouragement to continue deconstructing. It's always nice to have encouragement on that journey. 

In the story, though, it is not humanity that demands the sacrifice.  It is God who requires it.  So you have the story completely backwards.  It is supposed to somehow save us from God punishing us.  Of course, it is an incoherent mess of a story, but that is the story.  Humans do not have the keys to the gates of heaven, so humans cannot demand anything to get into heaven.

...

I feel like there is a difference between truth and fact. Myths are certainly not fact. I'm not sure that it then follows, however, that they cannot contain truths.

Sure, there can be truths in myths.  But there are also a lot of falsehoods in myths.  Making a mythical story does not insure that there is some great truth in the story.  And in the case of the Bible, the lessons are almost all bad.  Like the story of Abraham and Isaac, where blind obedience to authority is portrayed as a virtue, even when one is told to do something horrible.

If one lives in accordance with the stories of the Bible, one will be stupid, narrow-minded, and evil.

---

---

That's a really fabulous summary! Girardian theory on Jesus mythology produces a different structure than other dying/rising savior god myths that I am aware of.  If you are aware of any that present a deity as a willing victim to humanity's demand for sacrifice, with their subsequent resurrection tied to the end of a sacrificial system, I'd be truly grateful for you to point me in their direction. What a delightful find that would be for me

...

As noted above, humans are not the ones demanding the sacrifice, according to the story.  And, again, it is God who holds the keys to the gates of heaven (metaphorically speaking), not humans, so humans are not in a position to demand anything.

---

---

I think google has been leaning heavily on conservative Christian definitions.  Thanks for the suggested reading material. I'll get off my prejudice and dive in. I appreciate that you kindly called me out on that and am grateful for the opportunity to make an effort to change it.

Try an ordinary dictionary.  You might also find Bertrand Russell's essay "Why I am not a Christian" worthwhile"

http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html

One of the many things he discusses is the changing meaning of "Christian" over time.  It is less robust than it once was, but if the term is to be of any use at all, it must retain some meaning.  And this reminds me of yet another story, about the erosion of what "god" is held to be.  This idea has been discussed by Antony Flew:

Let us begin with a parable. It is a parable developed from a tale told by John Wisdom in his haunting and revolutionary article "Gods." Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, "Some gardener must tend this plot." The other disagrees, "There is no gardener." So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. "But perhaps he is an invisible gardener." So they set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. (For they remember how H. G. Well's The Invisible Man could be both smelt and touched though he could not be seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. "But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible, to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves." At last the Sceptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?"

...

http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html

You appear to be erasing all meaning from the word "Christian," though, perhaps, you can explain what it is that you mean by the term.

thanks for all the effort you took in this reply - I'm building a list of suggested readings from you all, and I truly appreciate it.  I agree, many stories in the bible are horrific. Addressing them as myth does not lessen the awful messages in some of them.  Some are nothing other than great examples of people being assholes and blaming their behavior on the supernatural (sound familiar, lol).  I find your take-away from the story of Abraham and Isaac interesting. I don't see the text reading Abraham as virtuous for being willing to sacrifice his son - although I admit that is a common conservative Christian spin.  I see a human giving in to sacrificial violence, and a text that was likely rewritten a bit, to portray God as changing it's mind or perhaps not wanting the sacrifice to begin with.  I view the bible as a collection of writing that slowly arc toward a nonviolent understanding of God.  I agree that not every myth contains some great truth.  We'll have to disagree about Jesus and his enemies, as you phrase it. I do not see that the texts bear out anything having to do with hell. We'll also have to disagree about who wants the sacrifice. Of course most of the bible reads like it is God demanding the sacrifice from people in the OT - that was their belief system. I do not agree that the new testament carries that through, however.  I will definitely agree that is the predominant interpretive view in American Christianity.  Although it's a little hard to discern if some of your comments were intended to be snarky, I choose to believe you are offering to help, and I hope that my gratitude comes through in my response.

---

Christian was the name given to followers of Christ, and I still define it that way.  Since Cercatorius is not a follower of Christ, I wouldn't define her as a christian.  This is not meant meant to be an insult or anything like that.  It's just my way of defining a person with her beliefs.  If a person "follows" Christ, then Christ is their "leader".  Those who discard christian beliefs and then continue to call themselves christians present a false concept of christianity to others.  I'm sure that they may be sincere in their beliefs, but they just aren't christians.

About Cercatorius' and others comments about the necessity of christianity to become more liberal to survive, it's the mainline denominations who are dying out at the time.  They are the ones who have tended to become more liberal.  It's the conservative groups who are gaining followers worldwide.  Christianity is losing ground in the US and Europe, but is in no way dying out.  It's not only growing, but exploding in Asia and Africa.  As far as the decline in the West, we've had declines and revivals over history.  I wouldn't pronounce the death of christianity yet.

Thanks for your feedback, Lek.

[Lek]

 It's not only growing, but exploding in Asia and Africa.

It always grows where ignorance is rampant and dies out where knowledge abounds.  You should ask yourself why that is but I know you won't.

So people in Asia and Africa have little knowledge - just brute savages - and you're an example of knowledge and enlightenment?

[Whateverist]

I feel that the bible is a collection of letters, poetry, fables, and word-of-mouth versions of events from history (not necessarily actual history), and a wonderful collection of myths.  I do not believe it to be a guidebook, history book, or science book. I do not believe it is inerrant, nor is it the inspired word of god. I think truth can be found in parts of it.  I think there is also truth in other myths (different than facts), fables, poetry, etc.  I think one of the biggest tragedies is people who want to make it a continuous single piece of work. That takes a lot of perspective away in one fell swoop.  In short, I think the bible is the pieced together written record of one group of people's ongoing attempt to make sense of their world and relate to the force of creation, and destruction.
...

If the Bible is just a collection of works written by uninspired people, why are you a Christian at all?  Why are you not some other sort of theist?  It seems to me that you have rejected the foundation of Christianity, but still accept some form of Christianity.  Why do that?

Well I made it this far in catching up before jumping in to say what others probably already have.  Oh well ..

I've heard her say the bible is one inspiring book among many and her personal choice.  She has specifically said it isn't necessary for everyone and other ways are as good or better for others.  That's good enough for me.  We all get to make our choices and she isn't pushing to make mine.  Yay for better theology.

[Whateverist]

Okay.. before you all jump on the bashing bandwagon train please know that Cercatorius is my friend, first and foremost. So, if you would all PLEASE show a bit of restraint and understand that I invited her here because we don't have enough knowledgeable theists here and of the ones that are here - they either preach, try to convert, spin fantastic tales of bullshit or they engage in a circle jerk of arguments that seemingly go nowhere.

I wanted her here because, I appreciate the views she has given. She has stood up for me and MY views when several of the fundies on my facebook friends list chose to bash me for my opinions and thoughts. She gets it. She really does and if you all just give her a chance, you might come to understand that.

First, I don't appreciate being told how to interact on the forum. If I see bullshit, I might call it out, and that's my prerogative.

Second, it's nice you appreciate her views and that she's stood up for you.  That doesn't mean anything to the rest of us except that it's a nice thing to do. It doesn't mean her views are any less batshit than anyone else's.

Why don't you do you, let her do her, and let me be me?

Judi didn't tell anyone how to interact.  She clearly and politely asked a favor.  She doesn't need permission to do that.  I'm liking the way Judi is being Judi.

[Whateverist]

I think that there is a broad spectrum. I'm rather in the process of deconstructing right now, to be honest. At the moment, I'm neck deep in Rene Girard's theories on mimetic theory and reevaluating my beliefs in that context.  I very much enjoy his ideas on violence and sacrifice and their place in religion.  I believe Jesus to have been someone who was more fully in touch with his own humanity than I am. His teachings offer a good guideline for me to step out of rivalry with others and hopefully evolve in my treatment of others, and also myself.

This borders on the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, but unless there's something in there about believing that Jehovah is the one true god (that actually exists) and that Jesus is his son (that actually existed), "progressive christianity" doesn't sound like it's actually christianity by definition. 

Oh my, and here I thought it was only xtians who liked showing up here and insisting we abide by their definition of what we claim to believe.  She is suggesting an intelligent, allegorical reading of the bible.  Nothing wrong with that as far as I'm concerned.  If it were possible for more xtians raised in stupid, literal traditions to move in her direction I would count it as a win for everyone.  Gawd knows there are many, many more fundies than intelligent xtians.  This is a good thing, not a categorical mistake.
Anyway, I don't hear her suggesting that there would be any advantage to us as atheists in adopting her views.  I'm not tempted but I count her as a peer and a well developed person.

[rexbeccarox]

First, I don't appreciate being told how to interact on the forum. If I see bullshit, I might call it out, and that's my prerogative.

Second, it's nice you appreciate her views and that she's stood up for you.  That doesn't mean anything to the rest of us except that it's a nice thing to do. It doesn't mean her views are any less batshit than anyone else's.

Why don't you do you, let her do her, and let me be me?

Judi didn't tell anyone how to interact.  She clearly and politely asked a favor.  She doesn't need permission to do that.  I'm liking the way Judi is being Judi.

That's nice.

[Godscreated]

@ cercatorius, I do not understand why you want to call yourself a Christian when you do not believe in what Christianity actually is. You seem to be a very nice person and that's good, however claiming to be a Christian and not believing what we do puts a bad light on Christianity, if that's not your intention and I do not believe it is why use the name of someone you do not believe is real. People already accuse Christians of believing to many different things from each other, which isn't true though we have differences, so why add another thing for us to try and defend, especially when you do not believe in Christianity. I believe in your right to call your beliefs whatever you want, I do not believe it's right to do so when it brings problems to any community of believers. Lek and I are of like mind on this , so it's not just me and I would say you've heard this from other Christians too.

GC

[Pyrrho]

...

thanks for all the effort you took in this reply - I'm building a list of suggested readings from you all, and I truly appreciate it.  I agree, many stories in the bible are horrific. Addressing them as myth does not lessen the awful messages in some of them.  Some are nothing other than great examples of people being assholes and blaming their behavior on the supernatural (sound familiar, lol).  I find your take-away from the story of Abraham and Isaac interesting. I don't see the text reading Abraham as virtuous for being willing to sacrifice his son - although I admit that is a common conservative Christian spin.  I see a human giving in to sacrificial violence, and a text that was likely rewritten a bit, to portray God as changing it's mind or perhaps not wanting the sacrifice to begin with.

Abraham "gives in" to sacrificial violence because god asks for it.  According to the story (Genesis 22), sacrificing Isaac is not Abraham's idea; it is god's idea.  (The wording of verse 2 suggests that Abraham is not otherwise wanting to do this at all.)  God does not punish Abraham for being willing to kill his son due to god commanding it, and god later rewards Abraham for his obedience.

As for it being the conservative Christian take on this, it is also the majority Jewish interpretation of the story.  It is a deviant interpretation to say something contrary to this.

And the Bible literally says god is pleased with Abraham for being willing to kill his son.  Genesis 22:

16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:

17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;

18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.


The only way to interpret the story another way is to reject what it actually says.

  I view the bible as a collection of writing that slowly arc toward a nonviolent understanding of God.

I very much disagree with that.  Hellfire and eternal torment is not the direction of nonviolence.

  I agree that not every myth contains some great truth.  We'll have to disagree about Jesus and his enemies, as you phrase it. I do not see that the texts bear out anything having to do with hell.

There are quite a few verses about hell.  Here are some of them:

---

2 Thessalonians 1:

6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;

7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,

8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;


Jude 1:

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.


Revelation14:

11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.


Revelation 20:

10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.


Revelation 21:

8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

---

In particular, consider Revelation 20:

10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.


There eternal torment is quite explicit.  The only way to not see that is to not read it.

We'll also have to disagree about who wants the sacrifice.

The Bible is explicit on who wants the sacrifice in the first two verses of Genesis 22:


1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.

2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.


The only way to not see that is to not read it.

You are not merely rejecting a literal reading, you are rejecting reading it at all.  Real or mythical, it is God who commands the sacrifice in the story.

Of course most of the bible reads like it is God demanding the sacrifice from people in the OT - that was their belief system.

As seen above, the story explicitly states that God is demanding the sacrifice.  One's belief system has nothing to do with it.  According to the story, God commands Abraham to kill Isaac.  Whether it is taken as an event literally happening, or as just a myth, is irrelevant to whose idea it is in the story to kill Isaac.  Whether it is taken literally or as a myth, the story says that God is pleased that Abraham was willing to do as God told him.

I do not agree that the new testament carries that through, however.  I will definitely agree that is the predominant interpretive view in American Christianity.  Although it's a little hard to discern if some of your comments were intended to be snarky, I choose to believe you are offering to help, and I hope that my gratitude comes through in my response.

...

I am certainly not trying to tell you that you ought to view the Bible as the inspired word of god, nor am I trying to get you to believe the stories in it literally occurred.  I am inclined to agree with you that it is basically myth.  But even as myth, the text tells the story.

That you want it to tell another story is irrelevant to the story it tells.

[popsthebuilder]

The emphasis in the story is that God was pleased with Abraham for having real Faith in the Lord. He had Faith that regardless of how it seemed to him, the Lord's will was his will , and he knew it was for better. For he was a messenger, and was instilled with the word, from God.

[robvalue]

Hey I've got a question for you cerca.

I assume you do believe some sort of God exists, regardless of how closely the bible describes it.

Do you believe that this God interacts with what we perceive as reality (in recent times)? If so, how often, what kind of thing, and how do you distinguish between stuff just happening and God doing stuff?

We did have a deist Christian here a while back (he said God does not interact, but is still the biblical God.) But I think I broke him The only part of the bible he believed actually happened was Jesus being God, and I asked how this is "not interacting". That was the last we heard from him.