| Welcome to Zatalounge Zatalounge is a chat forum provided for those who wish to present their personal views, opinions, or insights on all sorts of topics. Everyone has an opinion and they don't always agree. This website seeks to promote differences of opinion and discussions among users so that everyone gets to have their say. Become a registered member or be our guest. It's your choice! |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| "Liberal Christians" | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 8 2013, 01:40 PM (959 Views) | |
| Deleted User | Aug 8 2013, 01:40 PM Post #1 |
|
Deleted User
|
Deep down, I really don't think they believe any of the bullshit. The ignorant, uneducated fundies (or batshit crazy types like MPC)--as evil as they might be--at least have an excuse. They're too stupid to be able to think beyond what their preachers/priests tell them. And they're not literate enough to actually read large chunks of the bible for themselves. But the educated, progressive Christians: they're clearly smart enough to know--deep down--that it's all bullshit. I suspect that they only cling to it desperately because it is terrifying for them to 1)rebuild their worldview after years of indoctrination and 2) admit to their own mortality. Discuss. |
|
|
| Guest | Aug 8 2013, 01:51 PM Post #2 |
|
Unregistered
|
It's my understanding that the difference is that fundies take the Bible literally and liberal Christians take it figuratively. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Aug 8 2013, 01:57 PM Post #3 |
|
Deleted User
|
But that's my point. The idea that it is to be taken "figuratively" is an invention of the modern intellect. Educated people who believe in the Big Bang, evolution, women's and gay rights, etc., are unable to reconcile 90% of what the bible says. But they're unwilling to take the next step, so they do all these mental gymnastics to pretend its all allegorical. The people who wrote those myths, and the illiterates who believed them for centuries, intended them to be taken literally. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Aug 8 2013, 02:02 PM Post #4 |
|
Deleted User
|
PS: fundies cherry-pick and see certain things as figurative only as well, just to a lesser degree. The bible condones rape, incest, slavery, genocide, murdering disobedient children, and stoning women who aren't virgins. It also tells women they should cover their hair when they go outside and that they should never teach over a man. We're not talking about the Quran here. That is all in the Christian bible. The level of ignorance and mental gymnastics required to ignore all of the nastiness in it is astounding. |
|
|
| Guest | Aug 8 2013, 02:40 PM Post #5 |
|
Unregistered
|
I am an atheist. Have been since before college. And I am more intelligent than most people. But I've known some extremely intelligent and well educated people who honestly believe as a Christian. No, they don't believe in Creationism. No, they don't believe in a Young Earth. No, they don't believe every word of the Bible is literally true. But they do believe that Jesus was real and that He is an essential competent to their lives. Your smug self-satisfaction in thinking people can only think as you do to be honest/smart says more about you than them. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Aug 8 2013, 02:47 PM Post #6 |
|
Deleted User
|
I was ready to respond until the last sentence, but then the ad hominem attacks began. I'd love to continue, if you can be an adult. |
|
|
| Guest | Aug 8 2013, 02:51 PM Post #7 |
|
Unregistered
|
I know this is crazy, but my favorite people to debate interesting topics with are not thin-skinned control freaks who tell me what I can and can not say. |
|
|
| Guest | Aug 8 2013, 02:54 PM Post #8 |
|
Unregistered
|
Oh Jesus is real. He does my yard twice a month. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Aug 8 2013, 02:55 PM Post #9 |
|
Deleted User
|
That is entirely a preconceived notion of me that you brought with you to this thread before you even wrote anything. Nothing I said was smug, and I never tried to control anything or "tell you what you can and can not say." I presented something I thought was well thought out, and your very first response (though it started out fine) was to call me smug. Some of you guys really are unhinged. |
|
|
| Guest | Aug 8 2013, 02:56 PM Post #10 |
|
Unregistered
|
Tell Him if He doesn't water and dead-head your roses more, He's going to be bringing them back from the dead. |
|
|
| Guest | Aug 8 2013, 02:59 PM Post #11 |
|
Unregistered
|
You suggested that anyone who doesn't share your views on religion is either stupid or lying (to themselves). That's pretty smug. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Aug 8 2013, 03:05 PM Post #12 |
|
Deleted User
|
Was my thread title "All believers are fucking morons and my intellect is superior to theirs?" No. I just stated an opinion I have, which I am willing to debate with someone who is welcome to try and change my mind. If I weren't willing to commit to a lively debate, why would I even bring it up on a forum where 90% of the posters hate me? Your response had some valid points until you made a personal attack on me, throwing the thread off-topic. Likely, that's what you wanted. Anytime you present an opinion that's unpopular, people are going to get their feathers ruffled. It doesn't mean you're being smug. |
|
|
| Guest | Aug 8 2013, 03:08 PM Post #13 |
|
Unregistered
|
I went to an Ivy League school and I remember another student, who was smarter than I am, chided me when I asked, "How can intelligent people believe this nonsense?" She told me, "There are a lot of more intelligent people than you who believe!" She noted a well-known professor she knew I admired. While I didn't think it was a convincing argument that I was necessarily wrong, it did make me realize how pompous I was being. And how immature and limited my ability was to truly understand a completely different way of thinking about things. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Aug 8 2013, 03:14 PM Post #14 |
|
Deleted User
|
I promise not to take that as an indictment against me as long as I'm allowed to voice my opinions of these academics without it being taken personally. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Aug 8 2013, 03:17 PM Post #15 |
|
Deleted User
|
I'll also state that this is my issue with anonymous posters. I've no way to determine how many people I'm talking to, or which one said what previously... I do find it interesting that stating my opinion is "smug," but declaring yourself an Ivy League alum (the intimation being that anyone who did not attend Ivy League is beneath you and could not possibly be as educated or as competent a debater) is not smug. |
|
|
| Guest | Aug 8 2013, 03:18 PM Post #16 |
|
Unregistered
|
Sometimes, personalities don't complement. I think you and I are such an instance. (That is not a slam on you any more than it is on me.) |
|
|
| Deleted User | Aug 8 2013, 03:21 PM Post #17 |
|
Deleted User
|
No. That wasn't smug at all. |
|
|
| Guest | Aug 8 2013, 03:22 PM Post #18 |
|
Unregistered
|
I'm sufficiently self-aware to know that you would make that remark when I typed those words, but I thought it was important for context -- and otherwise didn't mind. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Aug 8 2013, 03:22 PM Post #19 |
|
Deleted User
|
Yale, right? I suspect your degree ultimately came from OU, though. Just like mine did. Just a feeling I have. |
|
|
| Guest | Aug 8 2013, 03:32 PM Post #20 |
|
Unregistered
|
So it's a battle for who's the most intelligent. So much for this thread. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Aug 8 2013, 03:40 PM Post #21 |
|
Deleted User
|
It wasn't, until the "I'm special because I went to Yale" and "you and I wouldn't complement eachother" prick had to assert his superiority. But I'm the smug one, of course. |
|
|
| Guest | Aug 8 2013, 03:44 PM Post #22 |
|
Unregistered
|
He said smugly. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Aug 8 2013, 03:48 PM Post #23 |
|
Deleted User
|
Have at it guys. I'm done with the thread until someone posts something on topic. I'll gladly respond to that. Until then, buh-bye. |
|
|
| Guest | Aug 8 2013, 03:49 PM Post #24 |
|
Unregistered
|
It wasn't, until the "I'm special because I went to Yale" and "you and I wouldn't complement eachother" prick had to assert his superiority. [/quote]Don't infer unintended slights. First of all, I never said I went you Yale (you made that up). Second, even if I had, it was only mentioned to provide context (that the people I was putting down were intelligent people). It had nothing whatsoever to do with you. And, suddenly, I'm a prick because you are jealous of people who went to Yale? Wow. |
|
|
| Guest | Aug 8 2013, 03:50 PM Post #25 |
|
Unregistered
|
I may have gone to a good school, but, clearly, I haven't mastered clicking a quote button on a garden-variety message board. |
|
|
| Guest | Aug 8 2013, 03:58 PM Post #26 |
|
Unregistered
|
LOL. Not even Jesus could bring PPSM back from this considerable ownage. RIP, dear. |
|
|
| Guest | Aug 8 2013, 04:22 PM Post #27 |
|
Unregistered
|
The topic of religion devolves into fighting. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you. NEVER before has this happened! |
|
|
| Guest | Aug 9 2013, 12:50 AM Post #28 |
|
Unregistered
|
Fundamentalism = literalism. A panicked, reactionary view of the bible in response to the evolution of 19th Century rise of science. Fools. Perpetrators of religion that doesn't require faith, because it's literally true. The very opposite of faith. If you believe there is something beyond the material, and if you want to commune with that "thing" then it helps to have a set of symbols and metaphors to help you talk about it - both to yourself and to other people. That is all religion is - a language of symbol and metaphors to help you make sense of something that is ineffable. Jesus and the cross are pretty good ones in the US - they're handy and pervasive. So lots of people pick it up one way or another because that's how a lot of us are socialized. But still, you ask people in their own words who Jesus was and you'll get different answers. Or why he was important. Different answers still. Even Paul and James disagreed. Hell, for that matter, the bible is full of all kinds of contradictions. Here's the thing: the whole mess wasn't ever meant to be taken literally. The people who wrote and compiled the Gospels were not literalists. If they were they would not have canonized four gospels which contradict each other on numerous facts of Jesus' life. They did not care about those contradictions because they did not read the texts literally. The whole idea of almost every religion, including Christianity, is that the thing is beyond human comprehension. You can write nice stories about aspects of it and make pretty objects to get in the mood for faith, but the idea is that you can't capture the thing. That's where contemplation, meditation, prayer and the like enter in. You can't get at "it" the usual way. You might get fringes of it if you stop focusing on the tangible and literal. But the moment you try and make "it" literal, you undermine it. That's why liberal Christians are so flexible and bendy (and makes fundamentalists say things like "they're not Real Christians.") They don't swallow that literal bullshit. But it doesn't mean they don't believe Jesus is connected to the universal consciousness they call God. I'm not a Christian myself. I got a dose of the fire and brimstone scaremongers too early and it shut down that avenue of spirituality for me permanently. But I know people who get something out of Christianity. Some gay people, even. But they're not typical fear driven, violence prone fundamentalist types - they've even probably read a book or two about other faiths as well. Such liberals. And they're always wanting to believe silly things like the poor are not poor because they're wicked. Or that love is a pure force created by God, so it's valid whether you love the same sex or opposite sex. So it's safe to say that liberal Christians know literalism is bullshit. But it's not true that they think "it's" all bullshit. Because they do express faith in "it." They're using Jesus and a symbol to get at the ineffable. There. Discussed. Give me a cookie. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Aug 9 2013, 04:45 AM Post #29 |
|
Deleted User
|
I'll just ignore the last two snarky sentences because you did actually take the time to discuss the topic. So for that, I thank you. The concept that the original writers were not literalists is interesting, but we have to remember that these writers were separated by hundreds of years and were motivated by many different things. We're not even sure specifically who wrote most of the bible. To say none of them were writing literal accounts requires quite a leap of faith--a leap of faith, I would argue, that is a byproduct of human intellect and modern sensibility. I would argue that Paul, believed to have penned most of the NT, very much intended for it to be taken literally. It was Paul who wrote things like "women should show the glory of their hair to no man but their husband," "a woman should not speak over a man;she should be kept silent," "it is better to marry than to burn," etc., etc.. To say nothing of what he wrote about homosexuality. We are not just talking about allegorical stories like Noah's Ark, Jonah and the Whale, or even the creation myth of Adam and Eve here. We are dealing with literal commandments made by God to commit genocide and rape, and to take slaves. We are dealing with presented histories known to be inaccurate. We are dealing with a Christ who not only penned the Sermon on the Mount, but also said that he came to "fulfill the words of the prophets, and that not one letter should be altered" (meaning--as a "liberal"--you can't just chuck out the OT). We are dealing with a Christ who said you must hate your family to serve him. The Council of Nicea, who arbitrarily decided what went into the bible (more than 300 years after Jesus would have lived), made decisions based on the fact that most people were illiterate and would never be able to read enough to see the contradictions. It would be more than another 1000 years before anyone could get their own bible and contemplate it. Even if those who assembled the bible meant it to be some book of allegory/poetry not to be taken literally, it was very much imposed on the general, illiterate public by priests in such a way. Otherwise, we wouldn't have had the Crusades, the Inquisition, Galileo being imprisoned for promoting heliocentrism, burning witches, etc. Literalism was not invented in the 19th Century. Finally, I must admit that our quibble might be over what it means to be Christian at all. If progressive Christians can admit to the following about the bible and Christianity: that the bible is a book of cobbled-together pre-existing mythologies assembled over hundreds of years; that it is loaded with mistakes, contradictions, and logical/scientific fallacies; that the barbaric parts should all be ignored; that it should only be accepted as a book with some good allegories; and that no legitimate historians in the area during the "time of Jesus" ever mention his existence once, then why even call yourself Christian? If it is because you believe in the spirit of the story itself and the teachings of Jesus, why not just say that the bible is a work of mythology that has some good lessons in it? If you need to believe in a deity, why not Horus or Mithra (earlier myths that match the Jesus myth almost to the letter)? Zeus or Odin? You touch on a need for humans to grasp something that is "beyond our comprehension." I get that. I understand it. I don't agree with it (it is more frightening for me personally to consider some being is responsible for all the nastiness of the world throughout time), but understand that many need a deity to take comfort in the beyond. Even gifted Ivy League academics who may not have been poisoned by the concept early on like you or I. Science is not enough for some people. But with everything we know about the big religions, how they came to be, and what is contained within the texts of their holy books, maybe it's time for them to take the next step and reject organized religion. We can discuss the possibility of a higher power and the limitations of science, but it still seems desperate to me to frame what could be a legitimate philosophical discussion within the ridiculous holy books and children's stories of the bible or the quran. It is as silly as discussing Zeus or Odin. I do believe that many of these academics and even ministers consider that a lot of the time. It isn't smug or condescending for me to say so. Many of them are indeed extremely intelligent people with a sense of curiosity beyond what they've been taught. And I think it's fair to say--as they have devoted their lives and careers to Christianity--that may color how they choose to present their opinions to the external world. To do otherwise would be to call into question the validity of their entire life's work. |
|
|
| Erna | Aug 9 2013, 05:39 AM Post #30 |
|
How sad that Miss PP did not have a (private school) European Roman Catholic educatia such as we had, but instead was confined to American lower middle class heretic thought, probably also attended public schools.
Edited by Erna, Aug 9 2013, 12:44 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Aug 9 2013, 06:57 AM Post #31 |
|
Deleted User
|
Shhh. The adults are talking. |
|
|
| Guest | Aug 9 2013, 09:20 AM Post #32 |
|
Unregistered
|
Damn. Fuck. Smartz makes me horny! Not into back door shenanigans but... OH MY LORD... If you whispered that into my ear I'd let you hammer on my backdoor like Luther nailing his ninety-five theses. |
|
|
| Guest | Aug 9 2013, 12:40 PM Post #33 |
|
Unregistered
|
Someone smarting from "class" envy is working overtime to impress a Yalie. :rofl |
|
|
| Erna | Aug 9 2013, 12:47 PM Post #34 |
|
We are not a Christian. We are a Catholic. |
![]() |
|
| Guest | Aug 9 2013, 12:52 PM Post #35 |
|
Unregistered
|
Just to be clear: I am said Yalie and I did not write post 28. And I certainly did not write post 32. |
|
|
| Guest | Aug 9 2013, 12:52 PM Post #36 |
|
Unregistered
|
Few fundamentalist Christians would disagree. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Aug 9 2013, 01:11 PM Post #37 |
|
Deleted User
|
R28, identify yourself the next time you leave a response. I'm looking forward to further discussion with you. The rest of these childish cunts have nothing to add and are being ignored. |
|
|
| Guest | Aug 9 2013, 01:19 PM Post #38 |
|
Unregistered
|
Clue: Telling people they are being ignored is the opposite of ignoring people. You're welcome! |
|
|
| Guest | Aug 9 2013, 01:22 PM Post #39 |
|
Unregistered
|
Respectfully you're out of your depth and embarrassing yourself. Stop it. :) |
|
|
| Guest | Aug 9 2013, 01:26 PM Post #40 |
|
Unregistered
|
^* Respectfully, you're |
|
|
| Guest | Aug 9 2013, 01:26 PM Post #41 |
|
Unregistered
|
A lot of liberal Christians are like Buddhists or pagans in that they believe spirituality is about love and interconnectedness. They do not judge others or try not to anyway. I'm friends with an openly gay Episcopal priest, a Unity church Reverend and a Buddhist. Their outlook on life is not very different. The Reverend believes that God is within each one of us. The Buddhist doesn't believe in God but that we all are connected and the love we share, we get back tenfold. The priest believes in love and acceptance. They are very similar. I'm an atheist and didn't realize until now I had so many close spiritual friends. |
|
|
| Guest | Aug 9 2013, 01:31 PM Post #42 |
|
Unregistered
|
My sister is "spiritual." She believes in things like "energy" between people. To me, if there isn't a scientific explanation, I don't believe in it unless I see it. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Aug 9 2013, 01:45 PM Post #43 |
|
Deleted User
|
But that takes us back to my previous point. Why call yourself a "Christian?" If you want to believe in a higher power, interconnectedness, spirituality, then fine. Believe in those things. But once you've admitted that 90% of the bible is bullshit, and see that there is no evidence outside the bible that "Jesus" ever existed, why hold onto that? Hold onto your spiritual beliefs of the "higher power', but admit that the Jesus story is just another human approximation of that, and that the bible is no more a tool for understanding it than Greek or Norse myths. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Aug 9 2013, 01:47 PM Post #44 |
|
Deleted User
|
I agree with you. But I'm at least willing to have a discussion with those who've moved past the standard organized religions. They're at least more willing to discuss the concept of God in a mature way than militant Christians or Muslims. |
|
|
| Guest | Aug 9 2013, 01:51 PM Post #45 |
|
Unregistered
|
People are usually of a particular faith because their family was. It seldom has anything to do with becoming convinced of anything. Most people like fitting in. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Aug 9 2013, 02:02 PM Post #46 |
|
Deleted User
|
That has certainly been my experience with the religious people I know. |
|
|
| Erna | Aug 9 2013, 04:03 PM Post #47 |
|
At the Metropolitan Community Church in Hollywood they pray for pinga. |
![]() |
|
| Guest | Aug 9 2013, 04:47 PM Post #48 |
|
Unregistered
|
Ask and it shall be given! |
|
|
| Deleted User | Aug 10 2013, 04:17 AM Post #49 |
|
Deleted User
|
Bump for more discussion! |
|
|
| Guest | Aug 10 2013, 09:24 AM Post #50 |
|
Unregistered
|
Calling out Joel Osteen and Joyce Meyer. http://churchismessy.com/2013/08/05/why-i-called-out-joel-osteen-and-joyce-meyer/ |
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2







7:57 PM Jul 10