Is 'certainty' required of Christians?

[Flail]

Question for debate:
Can one be a true Christian and still have doubts and uncertainty about some or all of the fundamentals of the faith, such as the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the forgiveness of sin, Paul's vision on the road to Damascus, the inerrancy of scripture etc?

[Shermana]

From an emphatically non-fundamentalist christian (or any religion) perspective, THIS is the defining tragedy of our times.

Only followed by the apparent failure of the liberal mainstream tradition to offer a viable and widely known alternative.

It's what keeps me up at night, and keep me here. (Well, stress and procrastination also play a part! )

Why is it a tragedy? Why should I follow a liberal / symbolic / non-literal form of Christianity and worship a nonexistent, non-literal God? How would treating God as a "symbol" for higher aspirations improve my life? I still believe in the higher aspirations, I just have no need for the outmoded symbol of them.

Indeed, I can agree with you there, how could an Atheist/Agnostic/Secularist/insert-non-traditionalist-title feel that a "Liberal" perspective of the religion is any better than the Fundamentalist/Literalist/Traditionalist/etc? Wouldn't it just be seen as a watered down version of the same thing that is meant to appear more appealing to the secular mainstream? What superior "pull" would it have in this regard as opposed to say Buddhism? Perhaps there's a reason why the "Liberal mainstream" has failed to present a real alternative, because it's basically a series of revisionist perspectives (i.e. a reaction more than a system itself) that don't handily add up into anything cohesive perhaps? I'd say Marxism has a greater "pull" of self-sacrifice for a perceived greater cause, why would the "Liberal" interpretation of "Christianity" be perceived as a system one would want to follow over others?

[Flail]

Flail wrote:

Please explain why it is necessary in debate to 'come to terms with contemporary theology'? It seems to me that contemporary theology is little more than a collection of more modern opinions as to the superstitious opinions of old. Why are anyone's opinions about God more valuable than someone else's? Since there is not evidence for God, isn't opinion all we have?

McCulloch responded:

Would it make sense to argue modern politics framed only in the terms and understandings of the eighteenth century? Not unless you are a supporter of Ron Paul .

While I cede your point, politics has to do with people and religion with a 'God'; unless there is finally some initial evidence as to this 'God' that I am unaware of, nothing has changed regarding 'Him' since the first century...other than opinion.

[Flail]

From an emphatically non-fundamentalist christian (or any religion) perspective, THIS is the defining tragedy of our times.

Only followed by the apparent failure of the liberal mainstream tradition to offer a viable and widely known alternative.

It's what keeps me up at night, and keep me here. (Well, stress and procrastination also play a part! )

Why is it a tragedy? Why should I follow a liberal / symbolic / non-literal form of Christianity and worship a nonexistent, non-literal God? How would treating God as a "symbol" for higher aspirations improve my life? I still believe in the higher aspirations, I just have no need for the outmoded symbol of them.

Exactly, being a non-theist permits one to garner philosophical inspiration from a variety of religious and non-religious sources without the trained necessity to squander valuable time worshipping idols and supporting superstitions with hard earned money that is better donated to charity.

That said, I think many 'agnostic Christians' here have more in common with those of us who are 'non-believers' than with many of their so called Christian brethren. My question to them is: why remain Christian at all?

[Slopeshoulder]

From an emphatically non-fundamentalist christian (or any religion) perspective, THIS is the defining tragedy of our times.

Only followed by the apparent failure of the liberal mainstream tradition to offer a viable and widely known alternative.

It's what keeps me up at night, and keep me here. (Well, stress and procrastination also play a part! )

Why is it a tragedy?

From WITHIN a religious perspective because it's sets up an all or nothing binary choice between untenable religion and no religion. Outside of religion it's meaningless.

Why should I follow a liberal / symbolic / non-literal form of Christianity and worship a nonexistent, non-literal God?

That's for you to decide. I have no apologetic agenda. I think it's a nice thing for religious people to know about however.

But I never said God didn't exist. I said that the bible and doctrine and religious language should not be engaged at a rank literal level. They may be symbols that point to and participate in an inexpressible existent.
You misread and-or reduce the modern "liberal" approach to theology.

God exists or he doesn't.

Two points:
- how can we know if God exists or not?
- for this an other complex epistemological reasons, advanced religious thinkers for centuries have pointed out that "existence" is not really the proper category to discuss God in.

How would treating God as a "symbol" for higher aspirations improve my life?

Again, I couldn't say.

I still believe in the higher aspirations, I just have no need for the outmoded symbol of them.

Outmoded in your judgment I suppose. But I would suggest that what is outmoded is the traditionalist-literalist aopproach to bible, doctrine, and language, whether it's defaulted to by believers or non-believers. My point is to update one's god concept and then decide if religion is lifegiving or not. My agenda is that update, not what you decide.

[Flail]

From an emphatically non-fundamentalist christian (or any religion) perspective, THIS is the defining tragedy of our times.

Only followed by the apparent failure of the liberal mainstream tradition to offer a viable and widely known alternative.

It's what keeps me up at night, and keep me here. (Well, stress and procrastination also play a part! )

Why is it a tragedy?

From WITHIN a religious perspective because it's sets up an all or nothing binary choice between untenable religion and no religion. Outside of religion it's meaningless.

Why should I follow a liberal / symbolic / non-literal form of Christianity and worship a nonexistent, non-literal God?

That's for you to decide. I have no apologetic agenda. I think it's a nice thing for religious people to know about however.

But I never said God didn't exist. I said that the bible and doctrine and religious language should not be engaged at a rank literal level. They may be symbols that point to and participate in an inexpressible existent.
You misread and-or reduce the modern "liberal" approach to theology.

God exists or he doesn't.

Two points:
- how can we know if God exists or not?
- for this an other complex epistemological reasons, advanced religious thinkers for centuries have pointed out that "existence" is not really the proper category to discuss God in.

How would treating God as a "symbol" for higher aspirations improve my life?

Again, I couldn't say.

I still believe in the higher aspirations, I just have no need for the outmoded symbol of them.

Outmoded in your judgment I suppose. But I would suggest that what is outmoded is the traditionalist-literalist aopproach to bible, doctrine, and language, whether it's defaulted to by believers or non-believers. My point is to update one's god concept and then decide if religion is lifegiving or not. My agenda is that update, not what you decide.

Well stated as usual. Religion isn't lifegiving to me primarily because of the rituals and the worship aspects; IMO, such things are non-sensical, but as you say it's not what I decide...but ALL religions have much to offer and I gain insight from MOST all of them...which is the beauty of non-belief...being able to read and appreciate each faith system without an agenda or the trained need to be saved or forgiven or seen.

[Haven]

I'd say Marxism has a greater "pull" of self-sacrifice for a perceived greater cause, why would the "Liberal" interpretation of "Christianity" be perceived as a system one would want to follow over others?

I agree, which is why I am a Marxist . I find that one can absorb philosophy and pursue social justice without resorting to a symbolic belief in a non-literal god.

[Flail]

I'd say Marxism has a greater "pull" of self-sacrifice for a perceived greater cause, why would the "Liberal" interpretation of "Christianity" be perceived as a system one would want to follow over others?

I agree, which is why I am a Marxist . I find that one can absorb philosophy and pursue social justice without resorting to a symbolic belief in a non-literal god.

IMO, UN-certainty about God should be the norm, because those are the facts....and fostering the critical examination of all religious dogma/propaganda should be required, while emphasizing only the moral lessons/guidance and the philosophical aspects....and in that there would be no supernatural being to worship and less institutionalization around which to extract valuable time and revenue from 'believers'. One wonders how much charitable giving would be enhanced if Christian givers gave nothing to Churches, thus freeing up more money and time to help the needy. Instead of meeting for worship services, people could gather instead for work projects to help the poor...bringing their shovels instead of their bibles.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Is certainty required of Christians?

In my neck of the woods I encounter that bunch a good bit, and one of the first things I ask if they engage me is, "Are you willing to admit you may be wrong?"

Seldom do I have one allow for such.

Thus, I can only conclude that certainty in faith - as goofy a notion as that is - is part and parcel of the belief system of a good bit of Christians. Combine that with a personal observation that when challenging the Christians in my area I get variations on, "I refuse to discuss this further", I can also conclude that not only is certainty a big bit of it, but the refusal to critically analyze these beliefs compounds the problem of being so certain in the first place.

As a disclaimer, I point to such folks as Slopeshoulder and micatala as folks whose beliefs in Christianity, and whose conclusions derived thereof, indicate that there are some great ways to go about these beliefs without restricting ourselves to ancient modes of thought. In my 'rarish' and brief encounters with the Christians in my neck of the woods, I've tried to incorporate these guys' notions into how I respond and question my neighbors. It appears as if these guys are on a bit of a forefront, at least as relates to my area.

[Flail]

From the OP:

Is certainty required of Christians?

In my neck of the woods I encounter that bunch a good bit, and one of the first things I ask if they engage me is, "Are you willing to admit you may be wrong?"

Seldom do I have one allow for such.

Thus, I can only conclude that certainty in faith - as goofy a notion as that is - is part and parcel of the belief system of a good bit of Christians. Combine that with a personal observation that when challenging the Christians in my area I get variations on, "I refuse to discuss this further", I can also conclude that not only is certainty a big bit of it, but the refusal to critically analyze these beliefs compounds the problem of being so certain in the first place.

As a disclaimer, I point to such folks as Slopeshoulder and micatala as folks whose beliefs in Christianity, and whose conclusions derived thereof, indicate that there are some great ways to go about these beliefs without restricting ourselves to ancient modes of thought. In my 'rarish' and brief encounters with the Christians in my neck of the woods, I've tried to incorporate these guys' notions into how I respond and question my neighbors. It appears as if these guys are on a bit of a forefront, at least as relates to my area.

Most Christians I encounter deep in the heart of the Biblebelt refuse to consider any uncertainty about their BibleGod notions...despite admitting that they are flawed human beings who regularly are mistaken about any things...as to this they have been trained to certainty...and they refuse to understand that such certainty makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[Shermana]

I'd say Marxism has a greater "pull" of self-sacrifice for a perceived greater cause, why would the "Liberal" interpretation of "Christianity" be perceived as a system one would want to follow over others?

I agree, which is why I am a Marxist . I find that one can absorb philosophy and pursue social justice without resorting to a symbolic belief in a non-literal god.

IMO, UN-certainty about God should be the norm, because those are the facts....and fostering the critical examination of all religious dogma/propaganda should be required, while emphasizing only the moral lessons/guidance and the philosophical aspects....and in that there would be no supernatural being to worship and less institutionalization around which to extract valuable time and revenue from 'believers'. One wonders how much charitable giving would be enhanced if Christian givers gave nothing to Churches, thus freeing up more money and time to help the needy. Instead of meeting for worship services, people could gather instead for work projects to help the poor...bringing their shovels instead of their bibles.

I am a firm supporter of the idea of giving to charity instead of pastor's pockets. Sirach says to not give to the wicked however, so this can be severely limiting and confusing on who to give to, but I'd say it rules out almost all pastors heh heh.