Non fundamentalist Christians

Originally posted by rwingett
If a questionable belief can direct her toward noble ends, then I say there is something to be said for it in relation to "correct" beliefs that seem to produce nothing but rampant inequality, chronic alienation and ecological devastation - as our modern world seems prone to do.

I disagree. Questionable belief directs people to arbitrary ends. When people end up heading towards noble ends it is because their better nature overcomes their beliefs. Suzianne however is one of those people who, in some circumstances will let her belief in the Bible overrule common sense.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Because it is the Word of God.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
... and the bible is trustworthy because ....... ?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Because it is the Word of God.

No.
The bible is the word of man.
Written by man.
Unless you have evidence otherwise.

Originally posted by whodey
Why people view political figures as the Christian ideal has always boggled my mind. Religion is but a tool to them.

I no more think Romney is a good Mormon than I do Obama a good Christian.

I doubt Romney really knows all the true beliefs of the Mormans. Most Mormans are just like the Roman Catholics, who were raised in that church, but don't really know what all they are supposed to believe nor do they care. And Obama spent many years in a church, whose preacher was a former Muslim, who thinks God should damn America instead of bless America.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I disagree. Questionable belief directs people to arbitrary ends. When people end up heading towards noble ends it is because their better nature overcomes their beliefs. Suzianne however is one of those people who, in some circumstances will let her belief in the Bible overrule common sense.

Science leads people toward arbitrary ends. The fact is that there are people whose better natures are fortified by their beliefs. Instead of making common cause with those people in the struggle against our lesser natures (whether they be informed by faith or by science), you would spurn them. This, I think, is certainly part of the reason that Christians have moved so far to the right in the last century. Because no matter how progressive they got, secularists like yourself were still going to shun and belittle them.

I have done a little diagram to help illustrate my point:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y170/rwingett/belief_quadrant.jpg

People like yourself seem to be intent on forcing the world to conform to a division along a north/south axis, drawing the battle lines between the secular and the religious. I say this is a false and unproductive way to view things. The battle lines should properly be divided along an east/west axis, pitting progressives (our better nature) against conservatives (our lesser nature). In that sense, religious people like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Dorothy Day would be allies in the struggle against conservative tyranny (whether it be secular or religious in nature).

That's how things used to be. There used to be plenty of progressive Christians. The world used to be divided more along an east/west axis (certainly more so than today). But people like you have foolishly moved that division more and more toward the north/south axis. And we are none the better for it.

Originally posted by rwingett
I have to say that I find the direction of this thread to be somewhat distasteful. Suzianne is not the problem here, and yet she is being assailed as though she were the second coming of Torquemada (or RJHinds. I'm not sure which is worse).

Suzianne could have engaged with the topic a little more constructively.

I wish she had tried out my thought experiment.

Now the thread has degenerated into the usual Yahoo to and fro between various persuasions of ignoramus, including some highly literate ones who have absolutely no excuse.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is of great consequence when she becomes all discriminatory and starts declaring that nobody who believes otherwise can be called 'Christian'.

As I don't think Christians should be the ones to define what 'atheist' means, I think it would be best to leave them to battle it out amongst themselves to determine who is a 'true' Christian and who is not. Their decision (if they could ever reach one) is of little consequence to me.

That being said, though, my personal opinion is that a true Christian is one who does not try to define what a true Christian is. It's a big tent, as Brother Kirk might say.

Originally posted by rwingett
Science leads people toward arbitrary ends. The fact is that there are people whose better natures are fortified by their beliefs. Instead of making common cause with those people in the struggle against our lesser natures (whether they be informed by faith or by science), you would spurn them. This, I think, is certainly part of the reason that Christians ...[text shortened]... ved that division more and more toward the north/south axis. And we are none the better for it.

Nice post.

Originally posted by rwingett
Roger Williams was a prominent Protestant theologian in the 17th century. His view on the separation of church and state (from Wikipedia):

Williams had read their writings, and his own experience of persecution by Archbishop Laud and the Anglican establishment and the bloody wars of religion that raged in Europe at that very time convinced him tha ...[text shortened]... red to maintain civil order and justice, but none had a warrant to promote any religion.

I agree. If God wished to force us to do anything he would. Put another way, if God gave us free will who is man to take it from us?

Looking at the history of man one thing is certain, and that is mankind is the one who forces others to serve him. Often the illusion of it all being in the name of God is created.

Having said that, with or without God in our lives our inner moral voice drives us to address injustice, which leads us to pass laws based upon that morality since we innately adhere to the Golden Rule. This is why I think I find more atheists leaning towards Big Government and Christians leaning towards a limited government. For the Christian, their moral code has already been established, and they recognize the importance of the free will that God has given us and we try to hold each other accountable to the Golden Rule. Therefore, government should be a limited one since laws inherently diminish our freedoms. However, there should be enough law to maintain a civil society. It is a balance that is often elusive if not impossible. Most importantly, the Christian realizes that everything is in the hand of God, and ultimately the Christian need not be the mastermind to keep us from destroying ourselves. Conversely, the atheist is burdened with the notion that the earth is heating up, resources are diminishing, and at any moment calamity is just around the corner that could destroy us all. The direct reaction to this is the propensity to try and control it all, which basically means herding people around like cattle. Again, freedom takes a back seat. Most importantly, statism appeases the natural moral response to injustices like poverty that the absence of God in ones life cannot silence......usually. Since the church traditionally had taken up the cause of the poor, it must be replaced with institutions that forbid the name of God to be spoken. However, in the quest to purge society of its "sins", the atheist has unwittingly agreed with the Bible, in the teaching that the love of money is the root of all evil.

So there you have it. Both atheist and those of faith tend to agree that as a society we live by the Golden Rule espoused by Christ, which is to do unto others as they would have done to you. Also, the love of money is the root of all evil. However, the atheist approaches the later in a much different manner as where those of faith are busy tending to the poor themselves instead of empowering others to take care of the poor for them. Google any research article regarding giving to the poor and you will find those people dominated by those of faith in God.

So which approach is better? From my perspective what we have now is an indictment of the secular mind. What we have today is a government in the US that passed over 40,000 regulations and laws last year. We now have over 40,000 less freedoms. Where does it end and are we a better society for it with our jails overflowing? Can redistribution lead us to salvation? Can we impoverish the wealthy and make them more righteous? If you ask me, all we are doing is shrinking the size of the 1% and creating perhaps a 0.01% in government who calls all the shots. Is this a better and more righteous society? I suppose it is if you enjoy reading about tyrants throughout history who hold all the power and wealth and condemn their fellow man to what amounts to slavery. Historically speaking, most men have known slavery rather than freedom.

Of course, I'm not going to let those of faith off the hook either, for if the church had done its job as commanded, less people would be inclined to turn their freedoms over to statists.

Incidently, it was nice hearing from you Kirk. I hope we did not scare you off again. 😵

Originally posted by rwingett
That's how things used to be. There used to be plenty of progressive Christians. The world used to be divided more along an east/west axis (certainly more so than today). But people like you have foolishly moved that division more and more toward the north/south axis. And we are none the better for it.

I agree with this. Your diagram is quite good as illustration of your points.

I'm firmly in King's corner, it's true.

Conservative Christians just give the whole lot of us a bad name.

I must admit, I'd never heard of Emma Goldman, so I went to Wikipedia to educate myself. What a fascinating life. While I don't agree with her anarchist opinions, I do admire her courage of her convictions. She was a feminist when it was decidedly uncool to be a feminist.

EDIT: Btw, you can use the word Liberal now. I think it has recovered from Ronald Reagan making it into a bad word (the 'L' word). I think we've adopted the word 'progressive' as a backlash to the conservative talk-radio hosts who continue to use it as Reagan did, as a damnation of what we believe vs. what they believe. Progressive just sounds more modern and happy and, well, ridiculous to me. 'Progressive' talk-radio is filled with wishy-washy weirdos, imo. If we're progressives, then the conservatives are regressives. I think we need to compare apples to apples however and not speak of a progressive/conservative schism, as this fosters confusion. We should keep like terms together. It should either be liberal/conservative, or progressive/regressive.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I doubt Romney really knows all the true beliefs of the Mormans. Most Mormans are just like the Roman Catholics, who were raised in that church, but don't really know what all they are supposed to believe nor do they care. And Obama spent many years in a church, whose preacher was a former Muslim, who thinks God should damn America instead of bless America.

I've met and interacted with many Mormon families when I was in school, via classmates and sorority sisters. I hate to stereotype, but most Mormon families I've met seem to place high status on wealth, maybe because they have big families and have this wonderful attitude about being prepared for local emergencies by having food and supplies on hand to weather a full year without assistance from government. While this is all a good thing, other Mormons in their churches tend to look down on those without wealth. Maybe it was more because I wasn't part of their religion, it's hard to tell. It was obvious, though, that to them I wasn't in their social strata, and I attributed that to mean wealth versus religion, because I don't consider religion to be a marker of social status, maybe they do, I don't know.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
The type who don't take the Word at its word. Who might find the idea of doing so ridiculous. Are there any on this board?

Every real Christian that I'm aware of, takes the Word at its word. That doesn't mean to say every Christian is an extreme Literalist. Interestingly, Christian "Fundamentalism" has been meant by a number of people ignorant of its true definition, to mean people who take every word of the bible completely literally. That definition is wrong. So when someone asks if I'm a Christian Fundamentalist, I enjoy the shock on their face when I say "yes." After they do their double-takes and get over the initial shell-shock, I explain with the caveat that I'm not an extreme Literalist and if that's what they meant, then they don't know what a Fundamentalist Christian really is.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I agree with this. Your diagram is quite good as illustration of your points.

I'm firmly in King's corner, it's true.

Conservative Christians just give the whole lot of us a bad name.

I'm a Conservative Christian, and I sure hope you don't think I give Christians a bad name. We have our differences politically but when it comes to our spiritual beliefs--and I think that's what really counts--I think we are about 99% in agreement.

I celebrate our similarities as well as our differences. Christianity would have a much worse reputation if we were all the same... we'd be like robots under mind control, lol.

Originally posted by rwingett
As I don't think Christians should be the ones to define what 'atheist' means, I think it would be best to leave them to battle it out amongst themselves to determine who is a 'true' Christian and who is not. Their decision (if they could ever reach one) is of little consequence to me.

I'm going to try to remember that you said that. In the future when you say something I disagree with, I won't be quick to challenge you because it is clear from your post here, that you are sensible, and sensitive to what is fair and just.

I really appreciate you saying that, rwingett. These kinds of statements really take the "sting" out of our conversations and make us want to come together to a more positive conclusion in our discussions. For example, I will hesitate--if not stop in my tracks completely--when I start to take a stab at defining Atheism here, and it's because of what you just said.

That post was so perfectly timed. I was seriously losing hope of any constructive exchange in these forums. Thanks.

+1

Originally posted by rwingett
Science leads people toward arbitrary ends.

Nonsense. Science is not a religion nor does it 'lead' people toward any moral direction. Nor is science an alternative to religion.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I agree with this. Your diagram is quite good as illustration of your points.

I'm firmly in King's corner, it's true.

Conservative Christians just give the whole lot of us a bad name.

I must admit, I'd never heard of Emma Goldman, so I went to Wikipedia to educate myself. What a fascinating life. While I don't agree with her anarchist opinions, ...[text shortened]... rms together. It should either be liberal/conservative, or progressive/regressive.

I use the term 'progressive' because 'liberal' doesn't mean quite the same thing everywhere as it does here. Depending on how the term is used it can mean something quite different from how Americans typically use it. Progressive is a less ambiguous term.

Plus (for me anyway), 'liberal' conjures up images of establishment candidates, like Walter Mondale, who skew more toward the center. 'Progressive' brings to mind people like Robert "Fighting Bob" LaFollette (who would be a good example to put with MLK in the progressive, Christian corner of my diagram).

As for progressive radio, I'm not sure which ones you're talking about, but I think Thom Hartmann is one of the best.