What are the alternatives to evidence?

[Flail]

Question for debate:

If your 'God' and your 'God beliefs' contain no amount of credible, verifiable evidence, is there anything left but conjecture and speculation upon which to stake your truth claims?

Argument and opinion:
Some here claim to profess 'modern Christianity' as a more palatable, intelligent version of fundamental Christian beliefs. Refreshingly they admit to having no proofs, no objective, verifiable evidence to support their beliefs.

I contend,however, that once a believer abandons the ground of fundamentalism from which their original beliefs arose, that they have necessarily entered into the realm of abject speculation and conjecture. At least the 'fundamentalist' has a Holy Book from a 'God' to follow. At least a fundamentalist Christian can point to his Bible. But once a believer begins to pick and choose from Biblical text or to find 'truths' on his own, has he not entered upon the flimsy ground of mere possibility?

I have no problem with modern interpretations of Christianity so long as adherents admit the speculative nature of their conjured beliefs and refrain from supporting with money and ritual practices the fundamentalist Christian ideas and institutions they profess to reject. In particular IMO, the 'modern Christian' should clarify their non-support for the fundamentalist judgment that others in differing traditions are 'hell bound' and evil.

[Flail]

Question for debate:

If your 'God' and your 'God beliefs' contain no amount of credible, verifiable evidence, is there anything left but conjecture and speculation upon which to stake your truth claims?

Argument and opinion:
Some here claim to profess 'modern Christianity' as a more palatable, intelligent version of fundamental Christian beliefs. Refreshingly they admit to having no proofs, no objective, verifiable evidence to support their beliefs.

I contend,however, that once a believer abandons the ground of fundamentalism from which their original beliefs arose, that they have necessarily entered into the realm of abject speculation and conjecture. At least the 'fundamentalist' has a Holy Book from a 'God' to follow. At least a fundamentalist Christian can point to his Bible. But once a believer begins to pick and choose from Biblical text or to find 'truths' on his own, has he not entered upon the flimsy ground of mere possibility?

I have no problem with modern interpretations of Christianity so long as adherents admit the speculative nature of their conjured beliefs and refrain from supporting with money and ritual practices the fundamentalist Christian ideas and institutions they profess to reject. In particular IMO, the 'modern Christian' should clarify their non-support for the fundamentalist judgment that others in differing traditions are 'hell bound' and evil.

Question revised and restated:
Is it reasonable to assert that if a particular Christian admits to having no credible evidence for BibleGod and founds his beliefs on faith alone, that he/she is indoctrinated?

There's that pejorative word again.

I would say that a particular Christian -- or a particular theist of any sort, for that matter -- who admits to having no credible evidence for God and founds his beliefs on faith alone has been taught. The question is, when does "teaching" become "indoctrination"?

I would say that evolution is taught, while fundamentalist-style Biblical literalism is indoctrinated; no doubt a fundamentalist would say that precisely the reverse is true. Logic is taught. Is that teaching "indoctrination"?

Isn't the difference between "teaching" and "indoctrination" dependent on nothing more than whether or not one agrees with what is being taught?

Why do you insist on using that word without either defining it or justifying it?

By indoctrination I mean 'inculcating the ideas and doctrines of a particular belief system or ideology while brooking no doubts or critical examination of the tenants of that belief system or ideology. Indoctrination is typically utilized by organized groups who have firmly established their doctrines and principles as unquestionable 'truths'. Indoctrination perpetuates or 'teaches' via dogma to gain adherence from new members where factual evidence as to the truth or actuality of the group's doctrines are lacking."
I do not insist on using the word 'indoctrination' in this thread, but rather I choose to use it. If you have a better, please offer it. I do not mean to imply a pejorative in the use of the word. It seems to apply, however, to my point or point of view.

I don't think indoctrination is necessarily a negative depending on one's particular point of view. It would seem to be an effective tool for causing beliefs when no credible evidence is available for proofs or persuasion; when there are no facts upon which to build logical progressions.
The question I am posing asks what is it that causes particular and specific beliefs in the supernatural when evidence is lacking? I am proposing that a primary cause of such beliefs is indoctrination.

[veeman]

FWIW I knew several people in div school doing joint degrees in law and medicine. I myself did (honors) work in the law school while in div school. MANY Jesuits teach science and law and hold doctorates in these fields. I was reading just yesterday in an alumni magazine about a young woman who is an M.Div./J.D. from Yale who does microfinancing in Liberia. I doubt her faith is anti-evidentiary.

There you go, Yale plus degrees means evidentiary.

[cnorman18]

Question for debate:

If your 'God' and your 'God beliefs' contain no amount of credible, verifiable evidence, is there anything left but conjecture and speculation upon which to stake your truth claims?

Argument and opinion:
Some here claim to profess 'modern Christianity' as a more palatable, intelligent version of fundamental Christian beliefs. Refreshingly they admit to having no proofs, no objective, verifiable evidence to support their beliefs.

I contend,however, that once a believer abandons the ground of fundamentalism from which their original beliefs arose, that they have necessarily entered into the realm of abject speculation and conjecture. At least the 'fundamentalist' has a Holy Book from a 'God' to follow. At least a fundamentalist Christian can point to his Bible. But once a believer begins to pick and choose from Biblical text or to find 'truths' on his own, has he not entered upon the flimsy ground of mere possibility?

I have no problem with modern interpretations of Christianity so long as adherents admit the speculative nature of their conjured beliefs and refrain from supporting with money and ritual practices the fundamentalist Christian ideas and institutions they profess to reject. In particular IMO, the 'modern Christian' should clarify their non-support for the fundamentalist judgment that others in differing traditions are 'hell bound' and evil.

Question revised and restated:
Is it reasonable to assert that if a particular Christian admits to having no credible evidence for BibleGod and founds his beliefs on faith alone, that he/she is indoctrinated?

There's that pejorative word again.

I would say that a particular Christian -- or a particular theist of any sort, for that matter -- who admits to having no credible evidence for God and founds his beliefs on faith alone has been taught. The question is, when does "teaching" become "indoctrination"?

I would say that evolution is taught, while fundamentalist-style Biblical literalism is indoctrinated; no doubt a fundamentalist would say that precisely the reverse is true. Logic is taught. Is that teaching "indoctrination"?

Isn't the difference between "teaching" and "indoctrination" dependent on nothing more than whether or not one agrees with what is being taught?

Why do you insist on using that word without either defining it or justifying it?

By indoctrination I mean 'inculcating the ideas and doctrines of a particular belief system or ideology while brooking no doubts or critical examination of the tenants of that belief system or ideology. Indoctrination is typically utilized by organized groups who have firmly established their doctrines and principles as unquestionable 'truths'. Indoctrination perpetuates or 'teaches' via dogma to gain adherence from new members where factual evidence as to the truth or actuality of the group's doctrines are lacking."
I do not insist on using the word 'indoctrination' in this thread, but rather I choose to use it. If you have a better, please offer it. I do not mean to imply a pejorative in the use of the word. It seems to apply, however, to my point or point of view.

I don't think indoctrination is necessarily a negative depending on one's particular point of view. It would seem to be an effective tool for causing beliefs when no credible evidence is available for proofs or persuasion; when there are no facts upon which to build logical progressions.
The question I am posing asks what is it that causes particular and specific beliefs in the supernatural when evidence is lacking? I am proposing that a primary cause of such beliefs is indoctrination.

I'll take your word for it that you don't intend to use the word as a pejorative, but it certainly has loads of negative connotations -- and I don't know of any POSITIVE connotations that it bears.

My problem, specifically, is that you are speaking of two different attributes that supposedly identify this kind of religious instruction, and they aren't the same thing: (1) not allowing doubts or critical examination, and (2) not providing objective and verifiable evidence. Those aren't the same thing.

My own religion would certainly fall under (2), but not (1). You can't conflate those two things as if they were synonymous. They aren't. If you don't know how a religious tradition that doesn't claim to objective and verifiable truth can allow doubt, questioning and critical thought -- and in fact INSIST on those -- drop by the Torah study at my synagogue sometime and we'll show you.

[Flail]

Question for debate:

If your 'God' and your 'God beliefs' contain no amount of credible, verifiable evidence, is there anything left but conjecture and speculation upon which to stake your truth claims?

Argument and opinion:
Some here claim to profess 'modern Christianity' as a more palatable, intelligent version of fundamental Christian beliefs. Refreshingly they admit to having no proofs, no objective, verifiable evidence to support their beliefs.

I contend,however, that once a believer abandons the ground of fundamentalism from which their original beliefs arose, that they have necessarily entered into the realm of abject speculation and conjecture. At least the 'fundamentalist' has a Holy Book from a 'God' to follow. At least a fundamentalist Christian can point to his Bible. But once a believer begins to pick and choose from Biblical text or to find 'truths' on his own, has he not entered upon the flimsy ground of mere possibility?

I have no problem with modern interpretations of Christianity so long as adherents admit the speculative nature of their conjured beliefs and refrain from supporting with money and ritual practices the fundamentalist Christian ideas and institutions they profess to reject. In particular IMO, the 'modern Christian' should clarify their non-support for the fundamentalist judgment that others in differing traditions are 'hell bound' and evil.

Question revised and restated:
Is it reasonable to assert that if a particular Christian admits to having no credible evidence for BibleGod and founds his beliefs on faith alone, that he/she is indoctrinated?

There's that pejorative word again.

I would say that a particular Christian -- or a particular theist of any sort, for that matter -- who admits to having no credible evidence for God and founds his beliefs on faith alone has been taught. The question is, when does "teaching" become "indoctrination"?

I would say that evolution is taught, while fundamentalist-style Biblical literalism is indoctrinated; no doubt a fundamentalist would say that precisely the reverse is true. Logic is taught. Is that teaching "indoctrination"?

Isn't the difference between "teaching" and "indoctrination" dependent on nothing more than whether or not one agrees with what is being taught?

Why do you insist on using that word without either defining it or justifying it?

By indoctrination I mean 'inculcating the ideas and doctrines of a particular belief system or ideology while brooking no doubts or critical examination of the tenants of that belief system or ideology. Indoctrination is typically utilized by organized groups who have firmly established their doctrines and principles as unquestionable 'truths'. Indoctrination perpetuates or 'teaches' via dogma to gain adherence from new members where factual evidence as to the truth or actuality of the group's doctrines are lacking."
I do not insist on using the word 'indoctrination' in this thread, but rather I choose to use it. If you have a better, please offer it. I do not mean to imply a pejorative in the use of the word. It seems to apply, however, to my point or point of view.

I don't think indoctrination is necessarily a negative depending on one's particular point of view. It would seem to be an effective tool for causing beliefs when no credible evidence is available for proofs or persuasion; when there are no facts upon which to build logical progressions.
The question I am posing asks what is it that causes particular and specific beliefs in the supernatural when evidence is lacking? I am proposing that a primary cause of such beliefs is indoctrination.

I'll take your word for it that you don't intend to use the word as a pejorative, but it certainly has loads of negative connotations -- and I don't know of any POSITIVE connotations that it bears.

My problem, specifically, is that you are speaking of two different attributes that supposedly identify this kind of religious instruction, and they aren't the same thing: (1) not allowing doubts or critical examination, and (2) not providing objective and verifiable evidence. Those aren't the same thing.

My own religion would certainly fall under (2), but not (1). You can't conflate those two things as if they were synonymous. They aren't. If you don't know how a religious tradition that doesn't claim to objective and verifiable truth can allow doubt, questioning and critical thought -- and in fact INSIST on those -- drop by the Torah study at my synagogue sometime and we'll show you.

Once again, I am speaking only of Christianity...not Judaism.

[cnorman18]

Question for debate:

If your 'God' and your 'God beliefs' contain no amount of credible, verifiable evidence, is there anything left but conjecture and speculation upon which to stake your truth claims?

Argument and opinion:
Some here claim to profess 'modern Christianity' as a more palatable, intelligent version of fundamental Christian beliefs. Refreshingly they admit to having no proofs, no objective, verifiable evidence to support their beliefs.

I contend,however, that once a believer abandons the ground of fundamentalism from which their original beliefs arose, that they have necessarily entered into the realm of abject speculation and conjecture. At least the 'fundamentalist' has a Holy Book from a 'God' to follow. At least a fundamentalist Christian can point to his Bible. But once a believer begins to pick and choose from Biblical text or to find 'truths' on his own, has he not entered upon the flimsy ground of mere possibility?

I have no problem with modern interpretations of Christianity so long as adherents admit the speculative nature of their conjured beliefs and refrain from supporting with money and ritual practices the fundamentalist Christian ideas and institutions they profess to reject. In particular IMO, the 'modern Christian' should clarify their non-support for the fundamentalist judgment that others in differing traditions are 'hell bound' and evil.

Question revised and restated:
Is it reasonable to assert that if a particular Christian admits to having no credible evidence for BibleGod and founds his beliefs on faith alone, that he/she is indoctrinated?

There's that pejorative word again.

I would say that a particular Christian -- or a particular theist of any sort, for that matter -- who admits to having no credible evidence for God and founds his beliefs on faith alone has been taught. The question is, when does "teaching" become "indoctrination"?

I would say that evolution is taught, while fundamentalist-style Biblical literalism is indoctrinated; no doubt a fundamentalist would say that precisely the reverse is true. Logic is taught. Is that teaching "indoctrination"?

Isn't the difference between "teaching" and "indoctrination" dependent on nothing more than whether or not one agrees with what is being taught?

Why do you insist on using that word without either defining it or justifying it?

By indoctrination I mean 'inculcating the ideas and doctrines of a particular belief system or ideology while brooking no doubts or critical examination of the tenants of that belief system or ideology. Indoctrination is typically utilized by organized groups who have firmly established their doctrines and principles as unquestionable 'truths'. Indoctrination perpetuates or 'teaches' via dogma to gain adherence from new members where factual evidence as to the truth or actuality of the group's doctrines are lacking."
I do not insist on using the word 'indoctrination' in this thread, but rather I choose to use it. If you have a better, please offer it. I do not mean to imply a pejorative in the use of the word. It seems to apply, however, to my point or point of view.

I don't think indoctrination is necessarily a negative depending on one's particular point of view. It would seem to be an effective tool for causing beliefs when no credible evidence is available for proofs or persuasion; when there are no facts upon which to build logical progressions.
The question I am posing asks what is it that causes particular and specific beliefs in the supernatural when evidence is lacking? I am proposing that a primary cause of such beliefs is indoctrination.

I'll take your word for it that you don't intend to use the word as a pejorative, but it certainly has loads of negative connotations -- and I don't know of any POSITIVE connotations that it bears.

My problem, specifically, is that you are speaking of two different attributes that supposedly identify this kind of religious instruction, and they aren't the same thing: (1) not allowing doubts or critical examination, and (2) not providing objective and verifiable evidence. Those aren't the same thing.

My own religion would certainly fall under (2), but not (1). You can't conflate those two things as if they were synonymous. They aren't. If you don't know how a religious tradition that doesn't claim to objective and verifiable truth can allow doubt, questioning and critical thought -- and in fact INSIST on those -- drop by the Torah study at my synagogue sometime and we'll show you.

Once again, I am speaking only of Christianity...not Judaism.

Okay, let me put on my old Methodist hat:

Methodists don't claim to have objective, verifiable evidence of God either, and they certainly don't encourage or require dogmatism and blind acceptance of theological doctrine. John Wesley himself, speaking of doctrinal correctness, once remarked, as I recall, "What matters holding the right doctrine? The devils in Hell know all the right doctrine, and for all that they be but devils." There's no hint there of being expected to buy any particular theological idea in particular, let alone being forced to accept one without question. The Methodist Church doesn't make anyone sign off on a "Creed" either; though they do use the Apostle's Creed liturgically, it's not required as a standard of belief.

You haven't answered the objection. You are presenting two standards for "indoctrination" as being the same, or indicating that one requires the other, and that's not accurate. I would say that not allowing questioning, doubt or critical thought is the proper standard for "indoctrination," and that would be as objectionable as the connotations of that word indicate; but not offering objective, verifiable evidence or proof is a separate issue, and that's not necessarily an indication of being forced or spoon-fed or "indoctrinated" in any way. It's just another way of thinking and another way of approaching these questions. To my own way of thinking, it almost REQUIRES critical thought, and a lot of it. I can offer no more proof of THAT contention than my own posts -- but I regard those as pretty good evidence that one may hold such beliefs and still know how to think and question, even if I do say so myself.

[Flail]

Question for debate:

If your 'God' and your 'God beliefs' contain no amount of credible, verifiable evidence, is there anything left but conjecture and speculation upon which to stake your truth claims?

Argument and opinion:
Some here claim to profess 'modern Christianity' as a more palatable, intelligent version of fundamental Christian beliefs. Refreshingly they admit to having no proofs, no objective, verifiable evidence to support their beliefs.

I contend,however, that once a believer abandons the ground of fundamentalism from which their original beliefs arose, that they have necessarily entered into the realm of abject speculation and conjecture. At least the 'fundamentalist' has a Holy Book from a 'God' to follow. At least a fundamentalist Christian can point to his Bible. But once a believer begins to pick and choose from Biblical text or to find 'truths' on his own, has he not entered upon the flimsy ground of mere possibility?

I have no problem with modern interpretations of Christianity so long as adherents admit the speculative nature of their conjured beliefs and refrain from supporting with money and ritual practices the fundamentalist Christian ideas and institutions they profess to reject. In particular IMO, the 'modern Christian' should clarify their non-support for the fundamentalist judgment that others in differing traditions are 'hell bound' and evil.

Question revised and restated:
Is it reasonable to assert that if a particular Christian admits to having no credible evidence for BibleGod and founds his beliefs on faith alone, that he/she is indoctrinated?

There's that pejorative word again.

I would say that a particular Christian -- or a particular theist of any sort, for that matter -- who admits to having no credible evidence for God and founds his beliefs on faith alone has been taught. The question is, when does "teaching" become "indoctrination"?

I would say that evolution is taught, while fundamentalist-style Biblical literalism is indoctrinated; no doubt a fundamentalist would say that precisely the reverse is true. Logic is taught. Is that teaching "indoctrination"?

Isn't the difference between "teaching" and "indoctrination" dependent on nothing more than whether or not one agrees with what is being taught?

Why do you insist on using that word without either defining it or justifying it?

By indoctrination I mean 'inculcating the ideas and doctrines of a particular belief system or ideology while brooking no doubts or critical examination of the tenants of that belief system or ideology. Indoctrination is typically utilized by organized groups who have firmly established their doctrines and principles as unquestionable 'truths'. Indoctrination perpetuates or 'teaches' via dogma to gain adherence from new members where factual evidence as to the truth or actuality of the group's doctrines are lacking."
I do not insist on using the word 'indoctrination' in this thread, but rather I choose to use it. If you have a better, please offer it. I do not mean to imply a pejorative in the use of the word. It seems to apply, however, to my point or point of view.

I don't think indoctrination is necessarily a negative depending on one's particular point of view. It would seem to be an effective tool for causing beliefs when no credible evidence is available for proofs or persuasion; when there are no facts upon which to build logical progressions.
The question I am posing asks what is it that causes particular and specific beliefs in the supernatural when evidence is lacking? I am proposing that a primary cause of such beliefs is indoctrination.

I'll take your word for it that you don't intend to use the word as a pejorative, but it certainly has loads of negative connotations -- and I don't know of any POSITIVE connotations that it bears.

My problem, specifically, is that you are speaking of two different attributes that supposedly identify this kind of religious instruction, and they aren't the same thing: (1) not allowing doubts or critical examination, and (2) not providing objective and verifiable evidence. Those aren't the same thing.

My own religion would certainly fall under (2), but not (1). You can't conflate those two things as if they were synonymous. They aren't. If you don't know how a religious tradition that doesn't claim to objective and verifiable truth can allow doubt, questioning and critical thought -- and in fact INSIST on those -- drop by the Torah study at my synagogue sometime and we'll show you.

Once again, I am speaking only of Christianity...not Judaism.

Okay, let me put on my old Methodist hat:

Methodists don't claim to have objective, verifiable evidence of God either, and they certainly don't encourage or require dogmatism and blind acceptance of theological doctrine. John Wesley himself, speaking of doctrinal correctness, once remarked, as I recall, "What matters holding the right doctrine? The devils in Hell know all the right doctrine, and for all that they be but devils." There's no hint there of being expected to buy any particular theological idea in particular, let alone being forced to accept one without question. The Methodist Church doesn't make anyone sign off on a "Creed" either; though they do use the Apostle's Creed liturgically, it's not required as a standard of belief.

You haven't answered the objection. You are presenting two standards for "indoctrination" as being the same, or indicating that one requires the other, and that's not accurate. I would say that not allowing questioning, doubt or critical thought is the proper standard for "indoctrination," and that would be as objectionable as the connotations of that word indicate; but not offering objective, verifiable evidence or proof is a separate issue, and that's not necessarily an indication of being forced or spoon-fed or "indoctrinated" in any way. It's just another way of thinking and another way of approaching these questions. To my own way of thinking, it almost REQUIRES critical thought, and a lot of it. I can offer no more proof of THAT contention than my own posts -- but I regard those as pretty good evidence that one may hold such beliefs and still know how to think and question, even if I do say so myself.

You could have fooled me as to Methodism. I was born, baptised and raised in the Methodist Church...my Uncle was the minister....in Kansas....pretty liberal compared to our Baptist neighbors but not at all what you suggest here..I quit forever in disgust at age 21.....must have been a bible belt version of Methodism....they were all nuts IMO.

In regard to 'indoctrination' I am primarily referring to the literal fundamental God claims, for which my Methodist roots permitted no doubt or critical thinking...it was all pre-packaged...over...done with
...I remember the responsive readings...like Stepford wives we were.....now as to all the rest of it, you are correct....there were are many ways to bake the cake...just so long as it's a cake.

[Stooti]

Question for debate:

If your 'God' and your 'God beliefs' contain no amount of credible, verifiable evidence, is there anything left but conjecture and speculation upon which to stake your truth claims?

Argument and opinion:
Some here claim to profess 'modern Christianity' as a more palatable, intelligent version of fundamental Christian beliefs. Refreshingly they admit to having no proofs, no objective, verifiable evidence to support their beliefs.

I contend,however, that once a believer abandons the ground of fundamentalism from which their original beliefs arose, that they have necessarily entered into the realm of abject speculation and conjecture. At least the 'fundamentalist' has a Holy Book from a 'God' to follow. At least a fundamentalist Christian can point to his Bible. But once a believer begins to pick and choose from Biblical text or to find 'truths' on his own, has he not entered upon the flimsy ground of mere possibility?

I have no problem with modern interpretations of Christianity so long as adherents admit the speculative nature of their conjured beliefs and refrain from supporting with money and ritual practices the fundamentalist Christian ideas and institutions they profess to reject. In particular IMO, the 'modern Christian' should clarify their non-support for the fundamentalist judgment that others in differing traditions are 'hell bound' and evil.

If we have nothing to we can hold on to, we hold on to one thing. That is why religion is also known as faith. The hope that rests in God's hands is a hope that is among the strongest in the world.

[Zzyzx]

.

If we have nothing to we can hold on to, we hold on to one thing.

I do not understand, "if we have nothing we can hold onto". We all have real life to "hang onto". We have the ability to live to the highest of standards that we set for ourselves. We can do our utmost to avoid harming others, and to help those in dire straits. We can endeavor to make the world a better place. We can develop satisfying and fulfilling relationships.

What else is needed to "hang onto"?

That is why religion is also known as faith. The hope that rests in God's hands is a hope that is among the strongest in the world.

Would it not be prudent to WORK toward what one wants rather than "hope" for it? Why assume that an invisible, undetectable, proposed "god" will grant wishes or requests (or actually be there to hang onto, other than in our mind)?

[cnorman18]

You could have fooled me as to Methodism. I was born, baptised and raised in the Methodist Church...my Uncle was the minister....in Kansas....pretty liberal compared to our Baptist neighbors but not at all what you suggest here..I quit forever in disgust at age 21.....must have been a bible belt version of Methodism....they were all nuts IMO.

In regard to 'indoctrination' I am primarily referring to the literal fundamental God claims, for which my Methodist roots permitted no doubt or critical thinking...it was all pre-packaged...over...done with
...I remember the responsive readings...like Stepford wives we were.....now as to all the rest of it, you are correct....there were are many ways to bake the cake...just so long as it's a cake.

Sorry about not getting back to you on this one; other threads got away from me.

Hey, I was a Methodist minister in central Texas and east Oklahoma. Doesn't get much more Bible Belt than that. Yeah, we had some fundamentalist types -- but if they were all that rightwing, theologically speaking, in my part of the world they were, as you say, Baptists. Maybe you were in a pocket of extremists -- I've seen a few of those -- or maybe you just saw what you expected to see. I've been there & done that, too.

In my town, growing up, my own church, First Methodist, was pretty stuffy and old-fashioned, but on the other side of town, there was St. Andrew's, where they had guitar services and no ties required, even on Sunday morning. Guess where I preferred to go.

Responsive readings were just a part of Methodist liturgy, repeating a Psalm together. Never seemed all that objectionable to me, just kinda monotonous (literally -- read in a monotone) & boring.

When I was the pastor, even the conservative ones were willing to listen to my Yom HaShoah sermons on the Holocaust (25 years before I thought of becoming a Jew) and my dictum, regarding gays finding work (this took place during the Anita Bryant campaigns to keep gays from becoming teachers, or pretty much anything else) that it wasn't the business of Christians to throw anchors to people that society was already trying to drown. We had an expression for the fanatical types -- "so heavenly-minded they were no earthly good." But I see what you mean. If you want to find really freethinking Christians, you'd probably have to go across the street to the Episcopalians. They could even drink in front of each other.

[ChaosBorders]

If you want to find really freethinking Christians, you'd probably have to go across the street to the Episcopalians. They could even drink in front of each other.

Interesting. My childhood was spent in Episcopalian churches until middle school, after which I went to Methodist churches for awhile. I always found the Methodist ones to be considerably more liberal.