For example, I believe that:
- Religion is a human construct
- The symbols of faith are products of human cultural evolution
- Jesus may have been an historical figure, but most of what we know about him is in the form of legend
- God is a symbol of myth-making and not credible as a supernatural being or force
- The Bible is a human product as opposed to special revelation from a divine being
- Human consciousness is the result of natural selection, so there’s no afterlife
I believe one of the newer religious paths could be a “belief-less”
Christianity. In this “sect,” one is not required to believe things. One
learns and draws upon practices and products of our cultural tradition
to create meaning in the present. The last two congregations I have
served have huge commitments to equality for LGTBQ people and
eco-justice, among other things. They draw from the well of our
Christian cultural tradition (and other religious traditions) for
encouragement in these efforts. I think a belief-less Christianity can
be a positive good for society.
Belief-less Christianity is
thriving right now, even as other forms of the faith are falling away
rapidly. Many liberal or progressive Christians have already let go or
de-emphasized belief in Heaven, that the Bible is literally true, that
Jesus is supernatural, and that Christianity is the only way. Yet they
still practice what they call Christianity. Instead of traditional
beliefs, they emphasize social justice, personal integrity and
resilience, and building community. The cultural artifacts serve as
resources.
But what about belief in God? Can a belief-less
Christianity really survive if God isn’t in the picture? Can you even
call that Christianity anymore? In theory, yes. In practice, it is a
challenge because “belief in God” seems to be so intractable. However,
once people start questioning it and realize that they’re not alone, it
becomes much more commonplace.
6 comments:
So (since you're riffing on my title, now), how about that "damnedest thing" from the conservative I quoted? Do you think he's really saying that women are better off without the personal liberty to make their own choices as to mates?
While this guy you're quoting sounds blandly non-committal in his belief in God, at least he's not talking human rights violations, right?
I mean, of the two, I can live much more easily with someone who is not sure that God exists over one who believes women ought not have personal liberty when it comes to marrying. At least the "belief-less" guy isn't talking human rights violations...
Beyond that, what is the source for your quote? What is the context?
"Do you think he's really saying that women are better off without the personal liberty to make their own choices as to mates?"
No.
"While this guy you're quoting sounds blandly non-committal in his belief in God, at least he's not talking human rights violations, right?"
So, denying the existence of God is "blandly non-committal"? Really?
I haven't seen anyone who is talking human rights violations.
"I mean, of the two, I can live much more easily with someone who is not sure that God exists..."
But that's not what we're talking about here. We are talking about someone who has taken on the mantle of an ordained minister in a mainline protestant denomination who is actively denying the existence of God. I really doesn't surprise me that you are more comfortable with someone who denies the existence of God, I think we've seen that previously.
If, this was simply some guy with questions, I'd agree with you. But it's not. It's a person in a position of leadership actively promoting a "God-less" version of "christianity".
You seriously can't be comfortable with that, can you?
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that he can't believe what he wants. Or that he can't gather followers and teach what he wants. What I am saying is that when he tries to cloak himself in a version of "christianity" devoid of God and Christ, then he is simply lying. Or perhaps perpetrating a fraud.
"...over one who believes women ought not have personal liberty when it comes to marrying."
You realize that you would have to actually provide a real quote of someone actually saying this for it to be true, don't you?
"At least the "belief-less" guy isn't talking human rights violations..."
Neither is anyone else, that I'm aware of.
"Beyond that, what is the source for your quote? What is the context?"
The source, is his very own personal blog, written by himself using his own words.
The context is, a discussion of a guest post written for an atheist blogger. Interestingly enough, he gets plenty of crap from the atheists who can't believe he doesn't have the guts to be honest and admit that he's an atheist.
Oh, I wasn't aware that your post titles were sacred.
Or does it bother you when those on your side say stupid, crazy, stuff.
Not at all. After all, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Thanks!
It's not so much imitation as mockery. You provide yourself enough flattery without any help from me.
Post a Comment