Questions for DU Christians

[EvolveOrConvolve]

I read the rather long post from originalPCKelly which was definitely angry and vehemently passionate about the abhorrent and intolerable views presented in some modern Christian sects regarding homosexuality. While much of what he posted was correct, I see where it crossed the DU line and needed to be locked. However, I'd like to extend the conversation without the violations by asking some serious questions of DU Christians.

1. There are many passages in the old testament that are in direction contradiction to the modern progressive movement. What can be done to mitigate that? Should a serious effort be undertaken to remove the old testament from official canon?

2. Do you as a Christian feel that you have an implicit responsibility for the terrible treatment of LGBT by Christians in a supposedly civilized society? If now, how do you reconcile the obviously anti-gay passages with your own liberal stance on homosexuality?

3. If it's impossible to tell the difference between Bible passages that are meant to be taken allegorically and those meant to be read literally, is there any worth to the Bible any longer? Would a complete rewrite of the Bible be possible? Should it be discarded in favor of a more inclusive set of guidelines? Could the many good things that come from Christian religion belief exist without the Bible?

I'm being serious with questions - please don't turn it into a flamefest that will get the thread locked. While I may be a known atheist, I have none, nada, zero problems with religious folks who are doing the right thing in the best way they know how.

[ZombieHorde]

1. Recommended. nt

[Critters2]

2. I'm a Girardian Christian.

Rene' Girard, a French-American anthropologist and cultural critic, writes about the ways in which religion is founded on violence. He says that Judaism struggled with scapegoating violence, which is found in all cultural groups and most religions, and with prophetic voices working to overcome that violence. Both of these thought patterns are found in the Old Testament. Girard became a Christian, and said Jesus' teachings of empathy and non-violence are the key to reading all of scripture, but that it's important to point to the violent sections as the ways in which all humans think and create "gods made in our own image". So, I read the Old Testament from a Girardian perspective, pointing out the human violence, but also the prophetic, non-violent voice which condemns it.

2. I have always preached non-violence and inclusion. In fact, my congregation gets tired of hearing me talk about what I consider the 3 foundations of Jesus' teachings--radical inclusion, radical forgiveness, radical generosity. Because I preach these consistently, I don't feel responsible for the behavior of those who do not.

3. I believe it is possible to tell the difference between Bible passages that are meant to be taken allegorically (actually, there's very little allegory in the Bible, but I get what you mean) and those to read literally. All of these need to be read, often to contrast one with the other.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

3. Follow up question

First, thanks for you even-handed response. I'm hoping to get more of those.

Follow up question: do you think removing the old testament from canon would be at all a possibility? Does it provide any value to modern Christianity?

[Critters2]

4. Again, as a Girardian, there are parts of the Old Testament that are important.

Notably, the Suffering Servant Songs of Second Isaiah, which Girard speculates encouraged Jesus to face his crucifixion without anger or retaliation.

The place in Job, where Job says to the god "I know that my redeemer lives". Girard says that this is the religion of non-violence calling out the religion of violence as ultimately powerless.

The Binding of Isaac, where the Elohim (gods) tell Abraham to take his son and sacrifice him, but Yahweh (the god of the prophetic/non-violence) stops him from doing so. In this passage, the difference is really clear in the Hebrew, but translators never point out that it's a different entity that calls for human sacrifice from the one who stops it. In fact, there's a lot of mistranslation out there. Last week, the lectionary text included a Romans reading where nearly every English translation has the phrase "wrath of God". But the Greek says "orge", not "orge theou". Thus, "wrath", a reference to human violence. No mention of God being violent. These things happen all the time, in both testaments.

So, no I don't think removing the Old Testament would help. Translating it correctly, studying it more carefully, and getting past the notion that everything in the Bible is intended as behavior we should emulate would help. But I wouldn't be in favor of removing it completely.

[freshwest]

5. Don't mean to be answering for him, but...

It's difficult to separate the two parts because Christians believe Christ is the fulfillment of OT prophecy. Jesus himself said that He was on the Earth for that purpose.

My feeling about the NT is that it commands a spirit of agape or unconditional love and forgiveness of others, a spirit of equality, emanating from the Holy Spirit, transcending the harder hearts and thus sinful nature of the chosen people of the OT. Who I might add, do not appear to condemn homosexuality at all now. Nor do they condemn a woman's choice in matters of reproduction or any other regressive agendas.

In the interest of disclosure, I'm no longer a practicing Christian after over half a century of having it influence my thinking. But I know the stories and still feel the presence of it in my life. But mentally, I am not there and won't pretend to be.

The Christianity I grew up with was progressive and focused more on self criticism rather than that of others. The issues the rightwing religionists have been pushing since the Reagan years fed off the children of the fifties who went to various churches and turned them into a political force to protect the rich, not the poor.

Right now we are living through a church era where Christians are claiming their rights as the chosen people of Israel, which I'm sure Judaism might disagree with. Many Israelis like the support of Christianity, but they aren't going to convert. Some Christians rightwingers have also claimed that the Jews will have to convert at the Second Coming, which I'm sure they won't go for that, either.

And I have not read in the NT (and I've read the Bible cover to cover many, many times) where Jesus condemned homosexuals. Paul was harsh in some passages, called it 'inconvenient' and didn't condemn it anymore than the temple prostitutes of the day.

Paul had a more rigid view of morality than Jesus displayed in his ministry. He was definitely struggling with his teachings as a Pharisee, and the humiliating experience when he said that Jesus appeared to him and urged him to change path or defy the God he claimed to believe in so much he killed people. But Paul admitted his own sins, that he was not worthy, not perfect nor could he be in this lifetime.

His famous verse:

"If I had the gift of prophecy, and if I understood all of God's secret plans and possessed all knowledge, and if I had such faith that I could move mountains, but didn't love others, I would be nothing."

If we are to believe that there is a place for God in the Biblical sense to dwell in every human being, that there is, as many other faiths say, a sacred part of each person, it cannot be denied to those who are differently gendered. When you say that God is Love, that doesn't leave room for killing anymore, as Jesus was supposed to have cleared the debt for which the penalty was death. When Jesus spoke of beams and motes, the servant who didn't forgive, etc., he wasn't giving the rightwing Christians permission to bomb, love money more than people, to degrade, dispossess, torture or any of the things that we see emanating from the church now.

He gave believers the freedom to love and forgive and be ourselves. RW Christianity does not fulfill those requirements. It is ththe eternal part of every human being that must be respected, the part of them that is part of God. I see none of that respect from the RW church now.

The Dominionist movement is no different from the alleged claims some in Islam have about bringing back their Caliphate, one religion ruling the world. The apostles learned, and even said, that it was what was in the heart that mattered to God, not faith or belief system. The notion of a single belief that God requires, a brand name or chanting or defining oneself by a group, is wrong.

More than enough for now. Hope that helped a little bit. I'm not an apologist for the rightwing, believe me.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

15. I can admire that brand of Christianity even if I don't believe it myself

The brand that says something like "the way we worship will include helping others, being inclusive, and affecting a love for others no matter their difference with ourselves". What you call "unconditional love", etc.

But that style of worship, at least to me, seems to be less and less popular in American society, and the growth of the more extreme sects over the last 30 years appears to bear that out.

Maybe humans are just genetically programmed to gravitate towards the more assholish parts of religion. I just dunno. :shrug:

[skepticscott]

26. And exactly how would you propose

to distinguish ALL the parts of the Bible that should be taken literally from those that shouldn't? What commands and dictates of God and Jesus and St. Paul are we supposed to obey, and which should we ignore? Some may be easy and obvious, but your "belief" is valueless unless you can show how to deal with every one. What are your standards and criteria for telling them apart...with examples, please?

[Critters2]

32. If you could ask that again respectfully, I might be moved to answer.

But, I don't intend to just get into an argument with you for sport.

Besides, I gave examples above.

[skepticscott]

33. Somehow, I doubt it

It's more likely that your claim doesn't hold up under scrutiny, so you've tried to deflect the question with (yet another) tone argument. If you'd truly been offended by my "disrespect" you wouldn;t have responded at all, but instead you provide a lame non-answer. Above you supplied only some of the easy and obvious examples I mentioned and did not address the full issue (in addition to glossing over the new problems that your version of the translations raise). My questions are frankly ones that the liberal and progressive Christians on this board never seem able to answer adequately. They just persist in the same cherry-picking of the Bible that they accuse fundamentalists (who, as we all know, aren't TRUE Christians) of practicing.

[AlecBGreen]

38. read your own sig line SS

There is the Bible, there is my understanding of it, and then there is the truth. That wasnt so hard, was it?

[skepticscott]

43. Nice try

But aside from the problem that your analogy to my sig line is badly flawed, the fact that there are multiple points of view or multiple interpretations of something in no way implies that they are all equally close to the truth, now does it?

Care to give it another shot, with thought this time?

[Samantha]

6. I would like to give you a very general overview I have

God gave us all free will. We can do as we like -- or not. We can live by the Ten Commandments if we choose to do so, we as people of free will, or we can ignore them should we choose to do so.

The overall two prevailing guidelines for me pertinent to your questions are "judge not lest ye be judged" and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

I do treat everyone as I would like to be treated, and in all questions pertaining to life styles I render no judgment on others. I consider it none of my business. It is not my place here on earth to judge anyone (in the sense that God judges our lives). That is his (or her) job, not mine, so I do not presume.

I make no excuses for the misdeeds of others but I sincerely believe we all at one point will account for our actions here on earth (well, those of us who consider ourselves Christians I believe think this -- a day of "reckoning" is coming; those of us who are not believers I think must have alternative thoughts on this subject).

Sam

PS I formed these early thoughts in my childhood days in a Baptist Church located in the State of Tennessee, believe it or not. I took the lessons I learned as a child literally, and nothing in my adulthood has persuaded me to see things differently. I am one of the biggest live and let live people I know! That is also how I grew up to be a political liberal.

[freshwest]

8. Greetings from another Baptist. Things were different then.

[Samantha]

31. Yes they were, but I am not

:) This just works well for me in my navigation through life.

Sam

[cleanhippie]

22. I have a small problem with what you posted.

God gave us all free will. We can do as we like -- or not. We can live by the Ten Commandments if we choose to do so, we as people of free will, or we can ignore them should we choose to do so.


The "free will" argument you propose, leaves out one very important factor that pretty much refutes that argument. Sure, one can choose to live by the 10 commandments, or choose not to, AND BURN IN HELL FOR ETERNITY. That last part, you forgot to mention. So now, free will looks like this..."Do what I say, even though it makes little sense or suffer an eternity of pain. You are free to choose."

Does not sound like free will to me at all.

[Samantha]

30. Why do you assume I literally believe in a burning hell?

[AlecBGreen]

39. depending on who you ask...

Hell isnt for those who break the 10 commandments.

"Touch the stove or don't, its your call. Be prepared to live with the consequences of your actions."

Sounds EXACTLY like free will.

[GKirk]

27. I think everyone should be forced...

...to adopt the attitude of "live and let live". :)

[freshwest]

29. Didn't George Carlin say that? And if they didn't just kill 'em. Just kidding.

You expressed what some call the Golden Rule or sometimes the law of reciprocity.

It exists in our DNA to a certain part. We need each other to survive, we're not comets hurtling through space by ourselves.

How much harm do we do ourselves worrying about what we don't have in common, what we have been taught to fear or hate, and deny ourselves the love and help that is available right now?

I was definitely brought in the 'live and let live' tradition.

Why not embrace that logic if ones wants to live?

[darkstar3]

7. Well, I'm not a Christian anymore, but I think I can answer why this thread will probably be short.

The Bible can be used to justify ANY POV on social issues, so long as you read it "the right way."* There are, maybe, a scant few Christians here who believe that their Bible actually condones the subjugation or other mistreatment of homosexuals. As such, I don't believe you're going to get many responses to your questions.

*This is the reason why I so vehemently debate with people who claim that they know "the right way" to read a particular scripture. I've seen too many "right" ways, and not one of them, here or elsewhere, has ever offered a full and satisfactory explanation for why their way is right and everyone else's is wrong.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

14. That was sort of the impetus for my questions

If the truly bad parts of the Bible were thrown out, it would be more palatable is a book of morality than the version we have now.

I also suspect you're right that I won't get many answers. Actually right now, I've gotten more responses than I expected when I wrote the post.

[BeFree]

9. Should all of America

.....be held responsible for the sins that were committed in America's name?

IOW... blaming a 2000 year old book for what's happening now is a leetle overboard, eh?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

16. False equivalency. I don't blame the 2,000 year old book

Rather, I blame those that use parts of that 2,000 year old book in an attempt to justify their poor treatment of others. What reason do we have to retain the parts of the Bible that condone these actions?

[patrice]

10. 1. If, for the purposes of this dialogue, we have to begin with the assumption that The Bible is

the perfect inspired word of God, that doesn't necessarily mean that our comprehension and understanding are perfect. Aside from the issue of whatever contradictions in The Bible itself one wishes to posit, there's also the fact that any given word can have a variety of meanings stretching from denotative to connotative and the fact that in addition to those individual words, we have word constructs whose meanings are affected by cultural context and psychology and lots of other traits that are part of interpretation. Ergo, The Old Testament should not be removed from consideration and other sources documents that were removed by the Council of Nicaea should be included rather than excluded.

Anyone who wishes to make THIS kind of Bible THE foundation of his/her life, beliefs, and behavior should become as fully aware of ALL of these issues as possible in order to make the best determinations possible, while recognizing that not only because of the issues sketched above, but also because of limitations inherent to the nature of all humans (with the exception of Jesus Christ within the context of this belief system), NONE of our understandings, none of our comprehension, none of our feelings or thoughts, and ergo, none of our decisions about the meaning significance and relevance of The Bible to our lives and behavior is ever 100% valid/True. In terms of the belief system about which we are speaking, it, The Bible, is divine; we aren't. No matter how much due diligence anyone performs, there's ALWAYS some degree of error and, depending upon the specific person, sometimes that error can even be greater than the validity. This an important point in how it bears on behavior, because it shows how we, like Christ, are called to do our honest best in fulfilling our responsibilities to know/love/serve "God" and know even then that our efforts to understand and our behaviors are ultimately always just cast into the void in terms of their authentic absolute valence, no guarantees, no quid pro quo. No matter how much Bible study one does, in regard to the meaning/value/purpose/consequences etc. of Bible-directed behavior, ultimately we are inevitably in the same position as Christ on the cross, not knowing why/if/how, despite our efforts, our Father has forsaken us.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

17. Lets start with the assumption

that "the Bible is the perfect inspired word of God". And suppose that you are correct in that some folks' comprehension and understanding are not perfect. I can buy that to a certain extent.

But, if that's the case, why hasn't God instructed those parts to be redacted? And why did He make it so ambiguous to begin with? Why not make it absolutely clear what was intended? If there are parts that don't make sense for modern peoples, why hang on to those parts?

For example, there are a multitude of stories from the OT, that were they to play out today, the participants would end up in prison or with a needle strapped to their arm. And in many of those stories, the characters were commanded to do what they did by God himself. Are those stories still apropos to modern, progressive religious belief?

[AlecBGreen]

40. yes, I think so

"Are those stories still apropos to modern, progressive religious belief?"

Just my opinion. Leave it all in, the good, bad AND the ugly. Sort it out as best you can. Talk it over with other believers, your pastor, nonbelievers. Think hard. Dont give up. Do this til the day you die, knowing you will never fully "get it."

I like what Patrice said above. If even Christ's last words were ones of doubt (Why have you forsaken me?), maybe I can learn to live with it too.

[patrice]

11. 2. No, partly because I don't go to church anymore and haven't done so for

over 20 years. Though I still love the Mass deeply, I don't identify with the organization that calls itself "the church". IMO, "Christians" who hate and/or act hatefully are not Christians.

All persons, to the extent that they are aware and capable, are responsible for the un-ethical behavior of all other persons. Christianity has no copyright on that value.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

18. You know that I'm going to pull out the One True Scotsman here

How are we to truly decide who is a real Christian and who is not? Maybe there are just bad Christians and good Christians. Whose responsibility is it to police the bad Christians?

You're definitely correct that each of us is partially responsible (even if that responsibility is only minute) for the bad acts of humanity, or at least at a minimum the responsibility to do one's best to counter-balance those bad acts with good acts of their own. That's something that I think progressive Christians and atheists can agree upon, at least from this atheists' way of thinking.

[AlecBGreen]

41. Thats not a Christian's job

"How are we to truly decide who is a real Christian and who is not?"

We are to admonish and seek to correct the ungodly behavior of other believers, but judgement is left to a higher power.

You're definitely correct that each of us is partially responsible (even if that responsibility is only minute) for the bad acts of humanity, or at least at a minimum the responsibility to do one's best to counter-balance those bad acts with good acts of their own. That's something that I think progressive Christians and atheists can agree upon, at least from this atheists' way of thinking.

I agree :hi:

[demwing]

12. The problem with the Bible

Is that there is undeniable evidence that the book - as it stands - has been revised, edited, and changed so dramatically, that it is hard to say what should, and should not be considered doctrine.

IMO, a good idea for Christians is to actually read your own book, not have it filtered and interpreted for you by someone with one hand on a Bible and the other in your wallet. Once you have a better, clearer picture of what the BIBLE says (as opposed to what your TV Evangelist picks for you to hear), then simply identify and follow the teachings of Jesus - end of story. If that gets confusing (and I can understand why it might), get a Red Letter edition. You know - one in which everything that Jesus says is printed in red. Then, look to what Jesus considered his ultimate philosophy:

Matthew 22:37-40 - Jesus said to him, " 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."

Love. That's it! Just learn to love. I don't think that this commandment was meant to be taken as allegory.

A Christian that follows these commandments above all others will, by default, mitigate their "the terrible treatment of LGBT by Christians in a supposedly civilized society" as well as "reconcile the obviously anti-gay passages with your own liberal stance on homosexuality" (though, I would have added the word "alleged" just before the word "Christians" in the former quote)...

Finally, since homosexuality is such an overriding thorn in Gods side, I decided to use the rest of this post to show all of the quotes from Jesus that condemn, discuss, and explain the problem, just to make sure his followers were compliant on this critical point. Here is the compendium of all of Jesus' teachings on the subject:

There, I think that just about covered it. I hope that clarified things a bit ;)

[EvolveOrConvolve]

19. If that's the case, then do we even need the Bible at all?

After all, the many good teachings in the Bible could easily be taught from a perspective that doesn't include the Bible. So why continue with it?

[demwing]

21. That's for Christians to decide, and I'm not Christian

In truth, I don't need the Bible at all, except as a layman's guide to all things Christian.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

23. And thus my questions

It's a hard group of questions for most Christians to answer, I think, because it requires a deep examination of the root of their beliefs.

[demwing]

24. No argument on the points

other than to say, if you are not Christian, you don't need the Bible. However, if you are not Christian, you really have no business telling Christians what to think, or believe, or read.

No one has the right to try to regulate thought. If hate is expressed as a thought, we just have to live with it while we try to educate people into sanity. Sometimes that takes generations of work.

If hate is expressed as an action - whether actively violent or passively oppressive - then I think the rules change. Believe what you like, but if you act on those beliefs, you open the door to reaction. People have the right to protect themselves.

BTW, thank you for this thread. I posted in originalPCKelly's thread, and find your approach to the same subject much appreciated.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

25. Absolutely!

It was definitely not my intent to try to tell Christians how or what to think, and I appreciate that you saw that.

[napoleon_in_rags]

13. The role of the Bible itself is a theological debate.

Its only one group who looks at it as perfect and not needing translation, which is bizarre given things like the book of Revelation which clearly need interpretation. The practice of how you choose to interpret the Bible as a whole is a major part of what different churches are about. For instance, one group is called Dispensationalism, they are pretty common, and believe the stuff in the old testament relates to a previous covenant God had with the people at that time, which doesn't apply to modern times. The fact that there are things in the OT that don't make sense (like being forbidden to eat pork or shave your beard) is something most modern Christians are WELL aware of... How they interpret the bible in their lives is defined by what church they are in, which have large differences between them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism

[EvolveOrConvolve]

20. If it has become so ambiguous

Is it truly useful as anything other than a mildly interesting fictionalized historical account of tribal legends from many thousands of years ago?

[Festivito]

28. Here's a take, thinking you might be barking up the wrong tree.

First:
I hope you realize that religious fights of today go directly into politics for the sake of money. And, I hope you would acknowledge that the Bible itself says that there will be people misusing the religion the Bible itself describes.

From your questions:

1. Many OT laws are considered complete after Christ conquered death and no longer are deemed to apply, e.g. eating pork. There should be no need to remove the books.

2. Do I feel responsible? Only as much as I cannot change things fast enough. Things such as beliefs change, but such change takes time.

Are Dems "responsible" for the long run of racism in the same way you ask this question of Christians? No. Except that maybe change was not fast enough.

Add that money is funneled from wealthy profit makers to keep us in a fight over this issue. Do you expect the effects of that money will just go away? Why? Because Christians should be perfect do-gooders?

3. The Bible is being re-written as we speak, little by little. The writ will be influenced by money and good intentions. Hopefully, the central tenants of a single truth and relationship from our hearts will continue along with leaving judgments of God to God.

I see the problem not as a problem of religion, rather, I see it as a problem of overly scared overly wealthy using whatever avenue they find in order to hoard money. If all religions and all such writing the world over were to disappear, those rich would simply find and use other avenues.

I don't think that will happen. I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Good luck.

[quaker bill]

34. The Bible is what it is and should be left alone

Most Quakers in this country welcome LGBT folks and do marriages under the care of our Meetings in a manner either very similar or the same as we do for straight couples.

We occasionally wear the color red, eat shrimp, and the non-vegan among us are known to enjoy a pulled pork sandwich as well. I feel I have responsibility for my treatment of LGBT folks and our Meeting's treatment of LGBT folks as well. We invite the rest of the world to join us in open acceptance.

Friends do not hold the Bible as sacred. In fact, no one thing is held as more sacred than another. Some of us read the Bible, others do not, we all get along just fine. Faith is not what one reads, it is how one lives.

[skepticscott]

44. If that were true, none of this

would be a problem, now would it? But it's not the case at all that the Bible "is what it is". There are many translations and can be many interpretations of any one translation of a particular passage, and it is by no means self-evident which is true, or most nearly true.

[jeepnstein]

35. The problem with all this...

is that people outside the Church are making all sorts of demands on Scripture that it just cannot meet. For a Christian, the Bible is God's perfect Holy Word. It's the document we use to mold and shape ourselves into an image that is more Christ-like and less worldly. Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus say we should impose our values or will on the World. We are to be a separate and distinct kind of people who are distinguishable by our faith and our deeds. If a man or woman outside of the Church is a homosexual is of no real consequence to a Christian. I just don't see where it's the Church's business to dictate personal morality outside the confines of the Church. If a person answers the call of the Scripture and lives according to God's will and not their own then the rules of the Bible do apply. That's a choice a person makes when they decide to join the Church. It's a conscious decision to set ones self aside from the World. Some view the Church as some kind of social club where the rules can be re-written to make everyone happy. That is just not the case.

What I perceive all too often is people outside the Church making demands that Christians bend their doctrines to fit the World. That's just not how Christians are supposed to roll. If a person chooses to live outside the Church then that is their business. If the state sees fit to grant homosexual couples the privilege of marriage then that is the state's business.

I won't launch into a rant about Brothers and Sisters who use the Church to engage in worldly politics. I will say that I find it highly inappropriate for Christians to try to use the force of law to impose Christian values on those who do not embrace them. All this does is drive a deeper wedge. Some folks spend entirely too much time pointing out the sins of others while conveniently ignoring the ones we ourselves commit daily.

[AlecBGreen]

37. good post

some I agree with, some I dont.

This jumped out at me: "Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus say we should impose our values or will on the World"

"Go ye therefore and make disciples of all nations." I take that to mean we should spread the Gospel. How do you interpret it? I agree that we should not IMPOSE our values or will on the world, but I take that verse to mean we should make our presence and our beliefs known.

[jeepnstein]

42. Spreading the word doesn't mean imposing a religion.

We are charged with spreading the word. The only way that works really well is on a one-to-one basis. Some preachers can get the point across speaking to crowds but it still is a personal thing when it is all said and done. I firmly believe in sitting down and studying with anyone who expresses an interest. I certainly don't hide my beliefs. Does that mean I should use the Church as a bludgeon? Should we spend too much time arguing with people who only seek to harm the Church? I think Scripture is quite clear on that answer.

Matthew 7:1-6
Judging Others
1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

6 “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

Luke 9:1-6

Jesus Sends Out the Twelve
1 When Jesus had called the Twelve together, he gave them power and authority to drive out all demons and to cure diseases, 2 and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal the sick. 3 He told them: “Take nothing for the journey—no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra shirt. 4 Whatever house you enter, stay there until you leave that town. 5 If people do not welcome you, leave their town and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them.” 6 So they set out and went from village to village, proclaiming the good news and healing people everywhere.

Luke 9:51-56
Samaritan Opposition
51 As the time approached for him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem. 52 And he sent messengers on ahead, who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; 53 but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem. 54 When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, “Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?” 55 But Jesus turned and rebuked them. 56 Then he and his disciples went to another village.

[skepticscott]

45. That's your interpretation

But the Catholic Church ( among others) has held for many centuries that their role IS to impose their specific version of their specific religion on as many people as possible, by force and violence if necessary. They have never been content with simply preaching when they could get away with forced or coerced religious conversions.

[jeepnstein]

46. They're wrong. Dead wrong.

You can't show me anywhere in the Bible where Jesus instructs us to convert people to Christianity by force. It's just not there.

[skepticscott]

47. Again, that's your interpretation

and to claim that there can't possibly be another flies in the face of the facts, as well as long experience. The Bible also says that salvation is reserved for those who are baptized and who accept Jesus as savior. Those who don't...well...not so good. if you believe that the choice is between eternal salvation and eternal damnation, it's not at all unreasonable to also believe that you are acting in people's best interests in converting them, even if it is by force or coercion.

And in any case, what is the point of "spreading the word", if you don't have the underlying attitude that your religion is better and truer than that of the people you're spreading it to? It's just as arrogant and intolerant in the end, regardless of how the conversion is accomplished.

[darkstar3]

48. This is another example of why I had a problem adhering to Christianity.

"In the world but not of it." This simple phrase, repeated again and again by pastors during my childhood, exemplifies exactly what you're saying here. While I respect that you personally don't feel the need to impose your beliefs on the rest of us, I see a problem with your first paragraph. You believe yourself and your brethren to be apart, above, better than those "outside the Church". You believe yourselves called or chosen by the one true God.

Now, most people would look at that combination and say "So what? They may think themselves better or chosen, but they're not concerned about us." My answer to that is "Yet." It is a miniscule step from the belief that you and your fellows are the chosen of the one true god to the belief in manifest destiny. That's why so many of your Brothers and Sisters use the Church to engage in worldly politics.

It was this in-group/out-group mentality, and the fact that I never held truck with those who believed they were above anyone else, that helped me move out of Christianity.

[AlecBGreen]

36. heres my take

1. There are many passages in the old testament that are in direction contradiction to the modern progressive movement. What can be done to mitigate that? Should a serious effort be undertaken to remove the old testament from official canon?

Christians, by definition, follow Christ and not necessarily the laws & regulations set down in the OT. As a Christian who does not believe homosexuality is a sin, I appeal to my fellow believers that we are to follow the teachings of Christ, not Paul or the OT authors. Christ was silent on the issue; two of his biggest messages were of repentance and unconditional love. I do NOT think we should discard the OT, for many reasons.

2. Do you as a Christian feel that you have an implicit responsibility for the terrible treatment of LGBT by Christians in a supposedly civilized society? If now, how do you reconcile the obviously anti-gay passages with your own liberal stance on homosexuality?

No, I do not feel personally responsible in the way I think you are asking. But I DO feel personally responsible in that I engage in similar behavior: I label & judge others and I rant & rail against the wickedness I perceive. I think we all do this, and since I do it, I am tacitly condoning that same behavior in others. Christs words about hypocracy strike very close to home with me.

3. If it's impossible to tell the difference between Bible passages that are meant to be taken allegorically and those meant to be read literally, is there any worth to the Bible any longer? Would a complete rewrite of the Bible be possible? Should it be discarded in favor of a more inclusive set of guidelines? Could the many good things that come from Christian religion belief exist without the Bible?

I do not think it is impossible to discern figurative and literal passages; its up for each reader to decide. While none of us will ever fully "get" the bible, I think we should be prepared to give an answer when asked "Why do you take X literally and Y figuratively?" So is there any worth to the Bible? Yes, in many ways.