Came across this interesting op-ed in the NY Times this a.m. Here's a brief excerpt. I rather like the bolded part - a nice reminder that one issue or stance does not the entire answer give.
quote: When liberals take on conservative Christians, it tends to be with insults - by deriding them as jihadists and fleeing the field. That's a mistake. It's entirely possible to honor Christian conservatives for their first-rate humanitarian work treating the sick in Africa or fighting sex trafficking in Asia, and still do battle with them over issues like gay rights. Liberals can and should confront Bible-thumping preachers on their own terms, for the scriptural emphasis on justice and compassion gives the left plenty of ammunition. After all, the Bible depicts Jesus as healing lepers, not slashing Medicaid.
That means that liberal Christians have to take the Bible seriously. That is something they do not do, usually seeing it as merely good stories and not Historically or Theologically important.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
To be fair, I don't believe that Bible-thumping Christians take the literary development of the Bible seriously either. As such, they often end up with logical falacies in their arguments.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:That means that liberal Christians have to take the Bible seriously. That is something they do not do, usually seeing it as merely good stories and not Historically or Theologically important.
As a "liberal Christian" I have to take issue with this statement. I think it's possible to be politically liberal and still take the Bible seriously. And certainly, I'd challenge anyone who thinks I don't have a keen sense of the Bible's historical or theological importance. If it doesn't have THAT afterall, then it is just a bunch of stories and Christianity is nothing but a delusion.
Given that I know lots of liberal Christians, I can also comfortably assert that I'm not at all unique in this respect.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You know, from my experience, most Christian fundamentalists have a pretty poor respect for what the Bible actually says. They're much more wedded to what they want it to say.
That being said, I'm bothered whenever people treat people who disagree with them as necessarily crazy or stupid, especially on an issue as large and contentious as religion. And I think that the country is harmed at least as much by the automatic disdain that some factions on the left have for religion as by the pandering and religiously motivated betrayal of what our country is supposed to be by some factions on the right.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
I'm not sure why you think "liberal" Christians wouldn't take the Bible seriously, Occasional. The author of the Op-Ed is suggesting that there are many facets to the Bible, and that the parts that deal with social justice and "loving thy neighbor" should be the parts that "liberal" Christians refer to when they debate the Bible with "conservative" Christians. Although, I think that is not really fair, either. Both "liberal" and "conservative" Christians probably have alot more in common than either side realize -
I personally don't think that sitting in a tent in isolation during my menses is a viable piece of Biblical practice in the current nowadays. Nor do I think that I need to practice the dietary restrictions listed. I do think that certain adjurations such as "plucking the log out of thine own eye first" are rather applicable. The author is suggesting a less "literal" reading of the text.
Historically speaking, the Bible tells some stories of the evolution of humankind and their understanding of their relationship with "God". I wonder if new chapters will added in the next millenium? And what future generations will make of the lessons encapsulated in the text?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
This sort of came up in the new Pope thrads, but I don't think I traced it out. One of the central differences between so-called "liberal" and "conservative" Catholics are less about doctrine and more about their attitudes towards authority. Many of the doctrinal changes (like birth control, woman/married priests, attitudes towards homosexuality) fall around this dividing line. There are strong arguments for the more liberal stances on these issues, but these arguments have largely been suppressed through the use of authority, in this case Papal and Curial.
Though I know less about the general situation, many of the conservative Christians (Occ, included) seem to be very tuned into authority, while the more liberal ones seem to be less engaged with it.
I''m not sure if that's necessarily relevant or even a valid observation, but I thought I'd throw it out there.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Hmmm. There's a certain reassuring quality to be found in following a strong authority, I suppose. On the other hand, Christ did not blindly follow authority - he challenged it on many levels. I think there's a need for both sides, so that they can balance one another out and find a more middle ground interpretation?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
A friend of mine once joking expressed it like "Both of us think that God is our father. It's just that we think he's a loving one and they think he's abusive."
To put that in perspective, the conversation involved Jonothan Edwards' Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God sermon.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:I personally don't think that sitting in a tent in isolation during my menses is a viable piece of Biblical practice in the current nowadays.
Good thing that isn't anywhere in the Bible, and was never practiced anywhere remotely connected to it outside the covers of The Red Tent.
quote: Nor do I think that I need to practice the dietary restrictions listed.
And that one was never intended for Gentiles, so we agree on that as well.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Some people have trouble telling the difference between "tough love" and "abuse". But I will admit that there are people out there who's view of God is closer to the "abusive father" model.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
bev, Just wondering, are you familiar with Mr. Edwards work of Calvinistic insanity? I think that might safely be classified as a supremely abusive father.
The bizarre thing for me is that, even with that, I still prefer the First Great Awakening to the Second one, what with it's anti-intellectualism and ignorant bigotry.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I read that sermon in 10th grade and it still makes me shudder.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
*raises hand*
Politically liberal Mormon, here. (And by liberal, I mean liberal, on almost every issue, though usually for different reasons than commonly cited by liberals.) I believe the scriptures are true, for the most part, and mostly true in a metaphorical sense where not literally true. There are errors, and such, but I place a great deal of importance on scriptural truth.
As for the original topic, I do take many of these people to task on their own terms (bible quoting, preaching, etc.) Especially when they tell me I'm going to Hell. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:most Christian fundamentalists have a pretty poor respect for what the Bible actually says. They're much more wedded to what they want it to say.
Most who criticize Christians with "their own religion" also present Jesus to be what they want him to be. This is not the sole province of any one group.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)