Liberal Christians - I highly suggest you cast your lot with the Atheists

[Taverner]

I'm sure you think your evangelical, fundie and charismatic Christians are your friends - but I can assure you they are not.

For one, they do not consider you a Christian. They consider you "lukewarm" Christians at best, complete apostates at worst. If they get their dream of a theocracy (and Michelle Bachmann's candidacy should indicate their seriousness in the affair) you will be cast into the same dungeons we will be.

"But I've been a Lutheran/Presbyterian/Methodist/Catholic all my life! Surely they will see me as a brother!"

No - they don't and won't. Pat Robertson, an all too typical example of the fundie mindset, thinks the mainline Protestants are the devil's minions - and he has not wasted any opportunities in saying so.

Bachmann considers you guys Pharisees and Barbarians. Palin will whore herself out for your vote, but just as the New Apostolic Mission (her brand of lunacy) what they think of Catholics, or the Pope aka 'the antichrist.'

We Atheists have no such plans for the boarding of your churches, the forced conversion of your children or the 'reNeducation' of you and your family. They do.

All we ask is that you respect our right to not believe, and we will respect your right to believe. Keep science as science and we're all one big happy family.

[ZombieHorde]

1. The Christians that go to UU churches already have. nt

[Taverner]

2. Well yeah, but I'm not really referring to them

Some UUs might even BE Atheists...

[Goblinmonger]

3. This one is.

Though, admittedly, I'm not too active in our UU Fellowship but that probably has more to do with the fact that it is 25 miles away.

[hlthe2b]

6. UU and many Methodists have long been there...

This assumption that liberal Christians ally with the RW fundamentalist Xian extremists is just bunk, in my experience. Yet, it is not a rare assumption, and one that sadly often leads to a level of intolerance towards all with religious or spiritual beliefs.

As for many UUs being atheists... I would say more liberal Christians of all stripes are really agnostics. As such, they respect self-identified atheists and others who hold no specific religious beliefs, because they too recognize the impossibility of faith-based 'certainty'. :shrug:

[Taverner]

8. You would be surprised

There are many in the Mainline Protestant churches who would rather have a Christian, even a crazy one (take your pick...) instead of an Atheist

[hlthe2b]

13. well, then I don't really think those are "liberal Christians..."

but more along the RW Xian variety. :shrug:

I would never frequent such a church for any reason--including just social/community fellowship.

[Taverner]

14. I mean Liberal in the theological sense, not the political sense

Theological liberalism usually starts with the Bible being the inspired word of god instead of the literal word of god, and goes from there

[hlthe2b]

17. Well, given that Jesus's tenets as laid out in the New Testament...

--and especially the Sermon on the Mount-- is the very epitome of Liberal (political liberal) views, I think either applies.

[Taverner]

19. Not to nit pick, but Sermon on the Mount has it's problems too

Not going to go into it - but it's not completely the "kum ba ya" it's billed as.

However, if Christianity, and specifically the Beatitudes, help you to be more compassionate, empathetic and driven to help the least of us, then more power to you.

[Thats my opinion]

39. your affirmation

includes hundreds of millions of dedicated Christians.

[Taverner]

53. Then good - there is a definite lack of empathy in today's world

And I am convinced it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with selfishness

[trotsky]

16. Yup.

And from the posts here in R/T, there are more than a few among us.

[Critters2]

104. The Methodist position on lgbt marriage and ordination is the same as that

of the Southern Baptist Convention. For the life of me, I never understand why Methodists claim to be liberal. It just ain't so.

[The Big Vetolski]

18. True, UU's can be just about anything. Except megachurches. nt

[Taverner]

20. I knew one UU minister who said "we don't worship - we learn"

[The Big Vetolski]

40. Well, that pretty much sums up their entire philosophy. I like it. nt

[Odin2005]

97. Heh, I'm an Atheist Buddhist UUer, LOL!

[Manifestor_of_Light]

86. I have yet to meet a self-identifying xtian in a U-U Congregation.

Maybe they are there, I don't know.

:shrug:

[ZombieHorde]

100. I think some Christian DUers belong to UU churches, but DUers are rare. nt

[Critters2]

103. When I was in Urbana, the minster at the UU church there was Christian.

Much to the horror of many of his parishioners.

[no_hypocrisy]

4. If you listen to "State of Belief" with Rev. Welton Gaddy, you can't tell

whether he's UU, Ethical Culture, humanist, or some really liberal Christian.

http://www.stateofbelief.com/

[Goblinmonger]

5. Yeah, but we're all mean and shit.

GRRRR!

[Taverner]

9. LOL and we make the baby jesus cry!

BOOGA BOOGA!!!!

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. Well said. nt

[damntexdem]

10. And agnostics? Further, get your atheist brothers and sisters to stop ...

constantly demeaning any and all believers.

We don't need evangelical atheists, either.

[Taverner]

11. Um, we don't demean any and all belivers

We might argue with you guys - but demean? I have never seen an Atheist demean a believer. We might call your beliefs delusions, but I've seen Christians do worse here on DU.

[dmallind]

12. What the hell has an epistemological stance to do with belief?

Almost all atheists ARE agnostics (never met an atheist who believes in knowledge through mystical revelation, but I guess they could exist)

[Taverner]

15. Yep - most people just don't understand that about us

We don't say "God CAN'T exist" because we have no evidence to support that

But we can say "There is no evidence to suggest a god"

[tortoise1956]

105. Thank you, Taverner

Good argument. I agree with you on both counts.

I think, from what you have posted, that we are a lot alike. I haven't seen you resort to personal attacks, at least not without provocation. As a matter of fact, in spite of my disagreement with some of your statements, I enjoy reading your posts because they tend to make me consider the subject from a different point of view.

Keep it up!

[Goblinmonger]

75. "constantly demeaning any and all believers"

Please, show me just an example of ONE atheist that does that. Just one. Remember your key word, "constantly."

[rug]

21. I would be bored to death.

Besides, it's often been said the only thing atheists have in common is the absence of belief in a god.

I wouldn't join Log Cabin Republicans either to advance gay rights.

[Gregorian]

22. I consider myself a Christian who doesn't know.

Whether it's Christians or Atheists, I have a problem. They don't know, yet they act like they do. That's what I call arrogant.

I've always felt that one the most important phrases is "I don't know".

Any time someone comes along, and people write, die, and follow them the way people do someone like Jesus, I perk up and take note. It's like global warming. All scientists are talking, and even though things are relatively the same, I'm changing my habits to avoid disaster.

I don't know. I'm just yacking on an internet forum. :)

[Taverner]

23. Athiests don't "know"

We just say there is no evidence to suggest that there is no god

AND

We say there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the Bible is anything other than bronze age era human-written material

[Gregorian]

26. I thought that was agnostic.

I've never met an Atheist yet who didn't know there isn't a god.

I think there are Atheists who are like fundies. My point is there is a middle ground where smart people reside until they see scientific proof.

[provis99]

29. atheists put Jehovah in the same category as unicorns and Odin.

Do you KNOW there is no unicorn and no Odin? If so, how does that make you anything more than a hypocrite?

[Taverner]

52. We're convinced there is no god

We don't know it, just like you don't know there is

[Gregorian]

63. That's what I'm talking about.

And from the reply above yours, I appear to have hit a nerve.

I now find this funny, whereas I used to find it threatening. This is the stuff that goes beyond belief. This is what makes conservatives act the way they do in the face of facts.

I didn't always have an open mind. I came to DU threatened by Atheists. Now I simply observe, and say "I don't know".

[ZombieHorde]

79. What are fundies like?

My point is there is a middle ground where smart people reside until they see scientific proof.

That claim seems silly. Do you have any evidence, or should I just blindly believe it.

[Gregorian]

81. Fundies act as if they know there is a god.

He speaks to them. Guides them. And they preach to their children and others that this is the case.

Those who believe the opposite are just like fundies in that they claim to know something without having sufficient proof.

There is a middle ground. The "I don't know" ground. That's where I believe smart people hang out. Anything else is taking one's imagination as fact.

edit- Just to further confuse you, here's what I'm listening to at the moment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTeXal2Wo2o

[ZombieHorde]

85. If I tell my kids there's no such thing as the boogie man, am I being a fundy?

I have no proof there is no magical, evil man invisibly lurking around.

[Gregorian]

88. Well, we certainly don't have any proof that the boogie man exists.

I don't care what people believe, but it's when they act on it that it becomes an issue.

The boogie man is rarely invoked in order to start wars, ignore poor people, convict people of being different. The boogie man isn't taught to young people who can't think for themselves.

I'm having a tough time with this right now because a friend from 20 years ago who I used to play in bands with has married a Jehovah's Witness. And he has gone all Jehovah on me. He takes an hour out of every day on the farm to huddle with his brood of children, and teach them his interpretation of the bible. He could do his kids a world of good by teaching them algebra, history.

[ZombieHorde]

91. "He could do his kids a world of good by teaching them algebra, history."

Do you think that stance is a fundy stance?

We can't prove religious instruction is not more important than history or algebra. We can't prove his family won't spend an eternity in some hellish torture realm if they don't learn his interpretation of the Christian Holy Bible.

[Gregorian]

94. You're right. But I trust the scientific method.

I don't know if teaching them the bible is not as important as science. But from everything I've experienced, one usually can't pray themselves out of a well. I'll take a rope over a bible any day. :)

To be honest, in my life, in retrospect, I would swear someone has been looking after me. I tried my best to fuck things up, and somehow ended up failing to do so.

The thing is, I don't know how gravity works, but I know it's a force field acting toward the center of the mass I live on. It is repeatable. Religion doesn't seem to work with repeatability. But then I have to admit that I don't know.

I'm glad you asked your question. I tend to think of bible studies as being stupid. And that comes from someone who was raised by a biblical scholar.

[humblebum]

24. Sorry. Not a chance. Not when both radical atheists and radical religionists are

both seen in the same light by some of us.

[laconicsax]

25. The important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to both. n/t

[humblebum]

27. And you are talking to yourself in a mirror, why?

Since you are the one brazenly referencing two "types" of Christians. New Atheism is about ridiculing religion, including Christianity -
nonspecific.

[laconicsax]

32. What are these two "types" I'm supposed to be on about?

I can think of a few possibilities:

-Catholic and Protestant
-Fundamentalist and Progressive/Liberal
-Sane and Insane

Which is it that grieves you so much?

[humblebum]

33. I believe you made reference to "liberal'' Christians. I think

most would consider that to mean that there is a group of non-liberal Christians out there somewhere.

[laconicsax]

37. You deny that there are non-liberal Christians?

That's the craziest fucking thing I've ever heard.

[humblebum]

66. I think you're on a different planet with that one. Go back to sleep. nt

[laconicsax]

67. In reply #33, you (humblebum) said:

"I believe you made reference to "liberal'' Christians. I think most would consider that to mean that there is a group of non-liberal Christians out there somewhere."

This was a response to my question to you, "What are these two "types" [of Christians] I'm supposed to be on about?"

I then replied to you with "You deny that there are non-liberal Christians?"

So, there are a couple ways to take your response of "I think you're on a different planet with that one."

1) You do deny that there are non-liberal Christians.
2) You take issue with my reference to liberal Christians as a contrast to the conservative/fundamentalist/Pentacostal/Dominionist/etc. ones.

If it's the first one, this is the craziest fucking thing I've ever heard.

If it's the second one, would you be willing to explain what it is about that that sticks in your craw? Namely what problem you have with my acknowledgement that not all Christians are whack-job fundamentalists.

If it's another possibility entirely, please explain what it is.

[humblebum]

69. In the opening post Taverner referenced 2 groupings of Christians -

liberal Christians and "evangelical, fundie and charismatic Christians." Those are the two to which I referred. Nuff said.

[laconicsax]

70. You do realize that Taverner and I are different people, yes?

Have you spent this entire sub-thread thinking that you were replying to Taverner?

I seem to recall going over this with you before, but either way, it may be advantageous for you to start paying attention to whom you're responding.

[humblebum]

78. Well, since I am pointing you to a reference that Taverner made,

It should be pretty obvious that I am corresponding with you. Perhaps you should drop the "laconic" part of your name and just go with "sax."

[laconicsax]

84. Which is why you accused me of making Taverner's argument?

If you knew that you weren't conversing with the OP, why did you accuse me of saying something the OP said?

In your reply #27, you said (to me) "Since you are the one brazenly referencing two "types" of Christians" and later clarified that the "two types" were referenced by Taverner.

[provis99]

30. +1.

[Taverner]

28. What do you consider a "radical atheist"?

If someone merely tells you why the bible is just a book, written by bronze age theocrats - and you take offense to that - then you're just as bad as the fundie Christians

[provis99]

31. it's funny.

Liberal Christians who insist the bible should not be taken literally, are essentially calling fundamentalist Christians delusional. Yet when someone points out they are delusional too, they get all upset. Hypocrisy at its finest.

[laconicsax]

36. It's the concentric circles of diminishing reasonableness.

At the center, you have the most rabidly zealous fanatics. Next you find the less zealous fanatics who may agree with the inner circle, but not their methods. Continuing outward, you encounter the fundamentalists who share many beliefs with the zealots, but not all of them, then those who respect those beliefs but don't share them. As you keep moving outwards, you meet the religious moderates and progressive believers.

Everyone on the spectrum believes those further in are too dogmatic, hostile, or crazy and those farther out as too sinful, or simply not religious enough and those in the outer layers inadvertently shield from criticism those farther in because the more benign beliefs of the moderate form bedrock of the fundamentalist's.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-harris15mar15,0,671840.story

[Taverner]

51. I still don't know what a "radical atheist" is

Is that like being radically pregnant?

:rofl:

[laconicsax]

62. "Radical atheist" has been defined as voicing an opinion.

Bus ads stating that people can be 'good without God' or merely that atheists exist is radical, so you can imagine how writing books and speaking in public is viewed.

[Taverner]

47. +100

[trotsky]

73. Spot on. n/t

[humblebum]

34. I couldn't care less what you think of the Bible - that's your right and opinion,

but I consider radical atheism to be the fanatical purveyor of such attitudes or opinions, when you yourself use a very limited epistemology, and really have no evidence or basis for your opinion.

[darkstar3]

43. ROFL

"I don't care what you think, here's what I think!" Nice work, Bill.

[Taverner]

45. Hmmmm no evidence - so all the data in support of evolution isn't really evidence

nice try

[humblebum]

64. I believe the subject at hand was the Bible.

Where did I mention evolution?

[cleanhippie]

98. That is perhaps the most disconnected from reality statement you have ever made.

:wtf:

[okasha]

41. You'd be more convincing if you had some notion

ofwhat actually constituted the bronze age.

[Taverner]

46. Bronze Age: 3200-600 BCE AKA the time of The Old Testament

Nice try though

[okasha]

54. Those are the dates for the Bronze Age in Europe.

In the ancient near east, the Bronze Age came to an end with the adoption of ironsmithing by the Hittites, ca. 1300-1200 BCE. By the time of the Old Testament's composition, in the 7th. century BCE, they were well into Iron II.

Suggest once again you do a better job of fact-checking your sources.

[Taverner]

55. Bronze Age, Iron Age - point is the book was written by MEN thousands of years ago

Before the scientific method, before the discovery of bacteria - so to put any authority into it is to put authority in the decision-making capabilities of dogs

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[humblebum]

65. So, am I to understand that the age of a writing determines its veracity?

You realize that's a logical fallacy don't you?

[okasha]

76. Okay, let's try again, since I evidently touched a nerve last night..

According to you, Plato had the decision-making capability of a dog.

So did Alexander the Great, Maimonides, the builders of Karnak, Pythagoras, Julius Caesar, Virgil and all the rest of the poets, engineers, scientists, mathematicians, architects,artists and the millions of everyday, ordinary merchants, farmers and others who went about their successful lives for millenia before the discovery of bacteria.

Your statement is mind-boggglingly divorced from reality.

[Leontius]

83. Last night was spot on. Sometimes the bright light hurts eyes.

[TZ]

74. One of my closest family friends is a born again Christian

She also respects me, whom you would label as "radical". Hmm, sounds like she's a better person than YOU! Fuck people who stereotype whole groups. I don't do it, but it seems like its okay for you to do it.

[TexasProgresive]

35. I get the same welcome from evangelical fundies as from radical atheists.

What's your point. Liberal evangelicals (see Sojourners), Liberal atheists, Liberal agnostics, Liberal Catholics, Liberal Jews, Liberal Muslims, Liberal Hindus and others are OK as long as they don't proselytize.

[Taverner]

50. Sigh, for the life of me I'd like to see what constitutes a "Radical Atheist"

What, do we really really REALLY believe there's no god or something?

[TexasProgresive]

72. I find it interesting that others used that term.

I did not view all the posts when I wrote radical atheists-how funny. I used it in the sense of anyone who is in my face about their particular belief. I have no problem discussing but in the case of those I call radical (fill in the blank) no discussion is possible and really no point in trying. I especially see no point it doing it here at DU since the theists, atheists, agnostics and those who don't give a fig are all pretty much in the same political spectrum. We theists at DU are easy, soft and convenient targets for radical atheists. It seems that a right wing evangelical site would be a more appropriate place for the atheist rhetoric that finds itself here.

Note: I'm going to be off line for a few days- if you wish to respond a PM would be better.

Definition #3 from the Urban Dictionary:

3. radical
A radical is a person subscribing to a political ideology supporting massive, unmeasured, and rapid change. Radicalism is contrasted with conservatism that advocate minimum change, reactionary action advocating counter-change, as well as progressivism advocating moderate/measured change.
A radical would want to chang, for example, a feudal system into a completely capitalist system, or a completely capitalist system into a communist one. Another exaple of radicalism would be a person who wanted to change an Islamic Theocracy into an Atheist state (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/state_atheism)

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Radical

1.radical atheism

when an radical wants complete and total atheism and will stop at nothing to get it

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=radical atheism

[Goblinmonger]

77. You're quoting urbandictionary.

That is rich. I'll give you that urbandictionary is a great source for understanding what the current jargon is for something (look up some word you don't understand in the newest Chris Brown song) or for finding out what sexual position/act your kids are referring to, but to use it as a source to indicate that something actually exists is just funny.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

109. To me the term refers to two types:

1. People who act as if they're missionaries for atheism

2. Those who are incapable of discussing any topic that even touches upon religion without adding snark, often ignorant snark.

[Thats my opinion]

38. So what?

First, What is your point? I don't tell you what you ought to do because there are kookie athiests ala Ayn Rand.

Second, Even if you are right and the fundies write progressive Christians off, that does not change my viewpoint or commitments. Why should I abandon my perspective because of what someone else believes or how they see me. And neither would you. We are perfectly capable of taking care of ourselves.

Third, science and religion share common interests and have a great deal to do and learn from each other.

[laconicsax]

42. Could you elaborate your third point?

[cleanhippie]

99. No, he will not. He has made that statement several times and never responds to requests to clarify.

He knows he is full of it as much as the rest of us knows he is full of it.

[laconicsax]

101. I guess that answers the question "WHY NOT SOME THOUGHTFUL DISCUSSION"

[Taverner]

48. "Third, science and religion share common interests"

Like what?

[Leontius]

44. Is this supposed to be an attempt at humor or not?

[Taverner]

49. No but thanks for playing

[Leontius]

56. Just wondering but then your post 55 confirms the humor attempt

line of thought.

[okasha]

58. Oh, no.

He's quite serious about that.

[Leontius]

59. I know he is the humor part is the OP, that any believer should

embrace someone who considers them no better than a dog.

[okasha]

60. It's quite a choice, isn't it?

Throw your lot in with Group A, who hate you because they consider you too close to Group B.

Or throw in your lot with Group B, who hate you because they consider you too close to Group A.

Dogs are better company than either one.

[Leontius]

61. I like Group AB the ones who don't make different mean enemy

[JoeyT]

68. As soon as I saw the headline for your OP, I just knew

some Christian was going to feel persecuted by it. You mentioned people that don't believe! Persecution! Oppression!

And lo and behold.

[laconicsax]

71. +1

[Leontius]

82. Lame

[Taverner]

87. Of course. I think pretending to be persecuted is sewn right into the DNA of religion

"Oh we must kill everyone who lives in X. Don't you know in the land of X, they believe in God Y - and kill everyone who believes in God Z!"

[okasha]

90. Funny, it's not Christians I see on this board

claiming they're "the most hated minority in America."

[humblebum]

93. I must really ask who is pretending to be persecuted here -

"All we ask is that you respect our right to not believe."

[kwassa]

80. It is about liberalism vs. conservatism, not atheism vs. theism.

Atheists can come in any political persuasion, just like theists.

Liberals should thrown in with other liberals. Liberal theists and liberal atheists should work together!

But they do already.

The culture battle that plays out within society at large also plays out within many churches, particularly the older churches.

[Gregorian]

89. I like this.

I think it's more like what I was trying to say above. I think you nailed it. One has their feet on the ground, the other has an agenda that seems to fill the void of dysfunction in their own life. Something like that.

[struggle4progress]

92. I think the law and the prophets are clear about where I should cast my lot: namely, with those who

suffer from poverty or injustice

[okasha]

95. Oh, snap.

n/t

[trotsky]

107. So why are you wasting time posting on DU?

There are a lot of people out there still suffering from poverty or injustice.

[Odin2005]

96. A fundy wingnut on another forum I post at hates Liberal Christians even more than he hates Atheists

To that SOB unless you are a biblical literalist you are not a "real" Christian and he calls Liberal Christians patsies of a "Marxist Intellectual Elite that wants to destroy America".

:crazy:

[Critters2]

102. I've been told I'm not a REAL Christian my entire life

by both fundies and atheists. I'm pretty good at knowing who my allies are by this point. But thanks for the advice.

[ButterflyBlood]

106. What a confusing post? "Cast your lot"?

What are we talking about here?

The fundies don't consider us real Christians? Well yeah I know that. No argument there. I totally understand that and will never expect them to accept me.

Do I fear them banning liberal churches and carrying out some Inquisition against atheists and liberal Christians? No, I have no reason to. It may be their dream, but it's not going to happen in my life. They are a threat in their activism and goals in many other ways no doubt about that, but the possibility of them getting too much influence for their backward agenda doesn't mean the US is at risk of becoming a Christian-version of Iran any more than the teabaggers' fears about Obama's policies means the US is on path to Stalinistic socialism. Let's not commit the slippery slope fallacy of our adversaries.

So how should I "cast my lot" with the atheists instead of the fundies? Well I'm certainly not going to worship with them and go to their churches, and I don't expect atheists to come to any I go to. You certainly are welcome if you are interested though and I would accept you. But there is no reason to expect you to.

So ally politically? Well I guess I'm already doing that. I'm not voting for the fundies' party and don't support Michele Bachmann for President. I'd say here though this more the atheists "casting their lot" with the liberal Christians than the other way around. After all the vast majority of Democrats are Christians and while I have no doubt most atheists would rather go with us than the party of the fundies, there are the Ayn Rand worshipers.

So I will not "cast my lot" with the fundies or the atheists. I will simply continue to support the party that advocates for my beliefs and views and support people of similar orientation regardless of their religious views. I will oppose anyone who stands against this too, regardless of their religious beliefs. This isn't an all out war where we need to pick a side or perish.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

108. I agree with everything you say. so what's your point?

I have no problem with any of the atheists I know in real life, and I do know a lot of them. It's the gleefully snarky ones on DU who annoy me. (And no, I don't feel persecuted, just fed up with the rudeness.)

[trotsky]

110. Actually I think most would rather distrust both groups.

In order to triangulate themselves into the comfortable, "reasonable" middle, liberal believers need to have someone to balance out the right-wing fundies in their religion. How convenient! Outspoken atheists! Ah yes, they are JUST AS BAD as the religious fundies who want to legislate their religion, who fly planes into buildings, and who kill abortion doctors!

Ta da! Here I am in the sensible center, how convenient!