Jason From NYC - 04 February 2008 08:29 AM

I notice that some like to talk about “moderates” as those who don’t practice their religion or twist their religion to resemble reasonable reality-based humanism.

I don’t call them moderates.  I call them liberals.

I agree with Mriana.  Theological fundamentalists want to kill non-believers, moderates don’t want to kill them, just brainwash them to believe.  There are very few theological “liberals”, and I think they are merely secular humanists in the process of discovering themselves. 

Occam

Oh I’d say Spong is a Humanist, but he’s still clinging to a god concept- one that is not metaphysical though.  Sort of like Cupitt saying love is god and calling himself a Christian Humanist.  Except to maybe keep their title and pension, I don’t know why they don’t call a spade a spade- ie love is an emotion, not a deity.  Of course, Cupitt has that Sea of Faith thing going on and Spong has this grand tour of the world to promote and sell his books.  Gotta keep the money coming in, ya know.

I heard Spong give the keynote address at the Unitarian Annual meeting in Nashville about five to seven years ago, and I was very impressed.  However, for a guy who was supposed to be a theist, he sure spoke like a secular humanist. 

Occam

Spong calls himself a non-theist (even in his books) and claims theism is dead:  http://www.beliefnet.com/story/88/story_8862_1.html

He has double talk though:

God is not an external, supernatural entity, ruling the world from above the sky. God is rather the Source of Life, the Source of Love, the Ground of Being. It is a non-theistic definition. Life has taught us that theism is dead. There is no supernatural God directing the affairs of history. Atheism, however, is not the only other viable conclusion. Supernatural theism is nothing but a human definition of God.

Somehow, I don’t see that as a non-theist, but if he wants to label himself as that, who am I to judge.

Mriana - 04 February 2008 07:55 PM

Jason From NYC - 04 February 2008 08:29 AM

I notice that some like to talk about “moderates” as those who don’t practice their religion or twist their religion to resemble reasonable reality-based humanism.

I don’t call them moderates.  I call them liberals.

I have no problem with making such a distinction if you prefer. However, I seldom use either word (hence the scare quotes.) Those who “don’t practice their religion” are lax or lapsed. Those who “twist their religion to resemble reasonable reality-based humanism” are confused or mistaken or dishonest. When it comes to religion, hypocrisy and inconsistency are virtues.

Jason From NYC - 05 February 2008 04:27 AM

Mriana - 04 February 2008 07:55 PM

Jason From NYC - 04 February 2008 08:29 AM

I notice that some like to talk about “moderates” as those who don’t practice their religion or twist their religion to resemble reasonable reality-based humanism.

I don’t call them moderates.  I call them liberals.

I have no problem with making such a distinction if you prefer. However, I seldom use either word (hence the scare quotes.) Those who “don’t practice their religion” are lax or lapsed. Those who “twist their religion to resemble reasonable reality-based humanism” are confused or mistaken or dishonest. When it comes to religion, hypocrisy and inconsistency are virtues.

In the 2/1/2008 Point of Inquiry podcast Edward Tabash reviews the religious views of the candidates.  He certainly doesn’t seem to think that the liberal Christian views of Hillary and Obama make them hypocrites.  There are a variety of denominations of Christianity.

What one person pejoratively calls ‘lax or lapsed’ another might call ‘renovated’ or ‘reformed’.

Jackson - 05 February 2008 06:39 AM

In the 2/1/2008 Point of Inquiry podcast Edward Tabash reviews the religious views of the candidates.  He certainly doesn’t seem to think that the liberal Christian views of Hillary and Obama make them hypocrites.  There are a variety of denominations of Christianity.

What one person pejoratively calls ‘lax or lapsed’ another might call ‘renovated’ or ‘reformed’.

Perhaps that hints at our fundamental difference. When I want to understand Christianity I don’t talk to self-professed Christians; I generally find Christians are ignorant about Christianity. I read the Bible and supplement that with the history of its founding.
I use my own mind to ascertain fact and judge accordingly. I assess self-professed adherents in accord as the dictates or reason and evidence—if a person contradicts a major and overriding aspect of what is written I conclude they aren’t practicing the religion to that extent. I put a conceptual philosophical analysis above and prior to a sociological analysis. I don’t leave the subject of Christianity to the Christians. That would leave the subject in the hands of the propagandists and apologists. Someone outside an ideology is in the best position to study it impartially.

But I agree that the NT isn’t a political document and often goes out of its way to avoid the subject. Its flexibility is by omission. Jesus, unlike Mohammad, never ruled “on earth” and he taught salvation primarily through faith in light of the imminent end of time. My view is that the methodology (faith and submission to authority) more than the content has historically undermined the establishment of a liberal order.

Maybe the liberal views of Xians that others preceive as hypocracy or heretical are actually an “evolution” or progressive movement of change to fit modern society or even an attempt to be more humane.  Who knows.

I see the Catholic vs. Protestant separation as a division among people and their interpretations. Christianity did not change much because of this. There are around 38,000 Christian denominations. I see this as falling into my category #2 in post #82. Even Spong’s interpretation. It is his interpretation not that of Christianity again, # 2.

The texts are the similar despite the tizzy-fit over minor differences over the years (Catholic bible has 73 books while the Protestant 66). The 10 Commandments are essentially the same, the Nicene Creed didn’t change nor did the future prophecies for the end times apocalypse, Armageddon.

Jesus has had a number of moderate things supposedly said by him. I have yet to see anything proven to be authentic. And where is the evidence within the texts demonstrating that God or Jesus desire a moderate, democratic Christianity? It is nowhere to be found.

Also, the future prophetic predictions haven’t changed as Christians still look forward to the destruction of 2/3rds of the human population - i.e. NON-BELIEVERS, in Revelation. I fail to see any moderation or democracy in that. The millions of “Left Behind” readers get excited when they discuss the horrible things that are going to happen to us. How moderate is that?

“Ever since Christ’s death, many Christians have been expecting the second coming in their immediate future. Most believe that Christ will not actually land or stay on earth at this time; the “real” second coming will occur later, when he returns on a horse leading an army on horseback who will exterminate one third of the earth’s population in a massive genocide. It will be numerically the largest mass extermination of humans in history.” http://www.religioustolerance.org/rapture.htm

Eventually 2/3rds of the human population i.e. NON-believers are to be wiped out.

And 44% of Christians are looking forward to this as a glorious time. Even the religious tolerance website says, “It will be numerically the largest mass extermination of humans in history.”

I can see that PEOPLE and society have desired a moderate, democratic Christianity or society but the religious texts hold them back. The totalitarianism of religious absolutes chokes progress.

Question, Freethinka, have you read any of Spong’s books and essays?

A post from a friend ...

“Sharia law ‘unavoidable’ in Britain: leader of Anglican church”
- yahoo news
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080207/wl_afp/britainreligionchristianislamlaw;_ylt=Aq3RKHTXCgIeyid7hs.Gk_x0bBAF

For all of this wretched, pathetic, accommodationist attitude, there are a lot of tolerant, liberal Europeans that are increasingly pissed off about this; I personally know several. If this kind of BS continues, there will be a culture war, and probably a violent one.

The absolute refusal of certain Muslim groups to integrate into European society is a problem that must be addressed, and the current burying-the-heads-in-sand attitude of European governments will have disastrous consequences.

Appeasement of toxic ideologies never works: just ask Neville Chamberlain…

“Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice”
http://ayaanhirsiali.org

Oh I’m glad I left the Episcopal Church.

BTW, your link is not working, but I found a working one with that title:  http://nz.news.yahoo.com/080207/8/3vxi.html

Britian will once again go through yet another cultural change- the Vikings, Germans, etc and now the Islamics.  Old Brit will never be the same if Williams and others don’t stand up to it.  There will be no Church of England.  He is dead wrong with what he is saying.  Either that or he’s been brainwashed or under duress to say that.  Well… there goes my proud heritage if Islam is intergrated into English law. 

Another article similar:
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/184118,sharia-law-should-be-introduced-in-britain-says-church-leader.html

Williams has lost his mind and needs to step down IMO.

Britain had to “face up to the fact” that some of its citizens did not relate to the British legal system, said Williams.

So what?  I know this is a very American attitude, but they need to get over it and become English, not English adapt to them.  Either that or they need to go home.  The man must be suffering dementia or something.  If any attempts like that happened here in the U.S. I’d sooner die than be under Sharia Law.  Sharia Law is the most inhumane system I’ve ever heard and I will not wear any head covering.  I will continue to wear my hair down in it’s native style and any man that thinks with his bleep instead of that thing in his skull can sooner go to prison for life if he acts on it.  They’d have to kill me just to keep from fighting it all (the religion imposition and the crime) in a court of law.  Williams seems to be giving up his heritage in favour of avoiding a fight to defend it.  He won’t be the leader of the Church of England anymore.  He will be Islamic, because the Anglican Church will be dead and buried.  England won’t be anything to be proud of because it won’t be England anymore.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/02/anglican-leader.html

He’s lost his mind!

This just in as well ...

UK to extradite Islamic preacher -

“LONDON - Britain’s Home Office on Thursday approved the extradition of an Islamic preacher who is accused of trying to establish a terrorist training camp in Oregon, a spokesman said.”

“Al-Masri already has been sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment in Britain for fomenting racial hatred and urging his followers to kill non-Muslims.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080207/ap_on_re_eu/britain_us_radical_preacher;_ylt=A0WTUZo2U6tHPYsABA.ROrgF

“Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice”
http://ayaanhirsiali.org

Thanks for fixing that link Mriana - I hope the one above works?

Again, it doesn’t work Freethinka.  No worries:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/07/ap/world/main3803057.shtml

Well, maybe there are people not under duress or brainwashed and will fight for the British culture and heritage.  I certainly hope so.