# Progressive Christians



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

What does this have to do with politics you may ask? I first heard this on Rush Limbaugh a few days ago. My first thought was: "it's just Rush". Then in the past couple days I have heard it a couple times again. This time from more liberal people.
OK, now it's time to look into it. It appears to have come from a liberal think tank. The theory is they can't compete for the faith based votes so they will change the faith. This isn't a new idea, liberal friends of mine have been labeling Christians that think different than them fundamentalists. 
What the heck is a fundamentalist anyway? I asked a couple people. My liberal friend said fundamentalist were like the cool aid drinking Jim Jones people in South America. She said they were radical fringe. Then I asked an old lady whom I respect (I have no idea if she is liberal or conservative) and she said they were people who believe the Bible is the word of god. That they put their faith in the same things Christians have put their faith in for hundreds of years. Then I simply typed fundamental into Microsoft word and hit thesaurus. It said: Fundamental = basic, original, elemental, underlying, etc. 
So back to my liberal friend. What's a Progressive Christian? Well, that's a person who fits Christianity into the modern world. The Bible is outdated and we can't be expected to be held to archaic ideas that are presented in these old books. Christianity must learn to fit into the modern world if it wants to be excepted. Really, so what's outdated for example. The answer: We are in a modern world where the ten commandments no longer can be taken seriously. Some of it can, but much is outdated. Ted Turner had it right they should be referred to as the ten suggestions. 
So I asked my liberal friend where do you think I fit? She said I was conservative so I had to be a fundamentalist radical. I said can't I be in between? No, you are one or the other, you are progressive or fundamentalist. So I don't think this is a new idea. It started years ago with the liberals deciding the definition of fundamentalist. For many years fundamentalist had a bad connotation in my mind. On television I have always heard it used in a derogatory sense. So now my liberal friend says I have to be progressive of fundamentalist. Well if it means basic, original, elementary etc I guess I am fundamentalist. She says fundamentalists frighten her. Odd, these new progressives don't frighten me they tick me off. I think I will decide what I am, and not let some liberal define my life. 
Anybody else hear rumblings about the progressive Christians? I have heard that their intention is to change the definition of Christian so it better fit's the democratic platform. It's a good thing they think they are cool now, because I think they will be real warm shortly.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Progressives scare me. They spin everything to suit their view of each situation as it comes up.

A certain Pastor in GF about 4 or 5 years ago started a lentin Bible study stating that we should not believe the Gospels as they were written about 30 or so years after Jesus death. And that Jesus was a good man but maybe not the son of God. This was in a Christian church. My comment at that time was "so we should believe your version as we are now 2000 years past ". I didn't get an answer. We found a different church.

One thing that is going for us old coots that actually the Bible teaching Bible believing churches are growing and the so called progressive ones are struggling.

Plainsman on a side note email me your snail mail address. I have your Christmas present to send. You'll like it. :wink:


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Plainsman ...

It's called "The Line Drawing Game."

We (and all individuals in Society) live our lives in and at different places on the Moral/Legal/Ethical/Acceptable ... "Spectrum."

Then ... "The Game Begins" ...

Each and every one of us then draws our lines in the sand "so to speak" CONVENIENTLY PLACED such that each individual himself stays firmly positioned on the "Correct" side of his line.

Obviously, the problem is ...

The lines in the sand are drawn "All over Hell and Half of Georgia" ... (to take advantage of a well used euphemism)

Everyone needs to be "One of the Good Guys" in their own mind at least ...

And there ain't no way around it ... or so it seems to me.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

it is too bad religious people can't just live their life according to their own belief instead of attemping to force others to follow their particular veiwpoint.

Thank God we have seperation of church and state in fact it was the very basis for the formation of this country.

Muslim Christian or jew if they have the power of govt behind them they would have us all goose stepping to their viewpoint.

Thats the problem with countries like Iran right now.

Same thing would happen here if the so called christian right had the power.

A priest once told me the biggest obstacle between man and God is organized religion and seeing what happens in this world "in the name of GOD/Allah/whoever"

I now know what he meant


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Ah the word play. Plainsman, you may be confusing evangelical and fundamentalist. Many so called liberals also do the same and are usually referring to evangelicals when they say fundamentalist. The following definitions are not agreed to by everyone. Generally, both are literalists or as I prefer to call it, my way or the highway religions. I agree with Bobm on one point based on my own experiences. Both groups tend to try to convince you that the Bible is literally the only truth and their beliefs on cultural and moral issues should be the basis for laws in America and are very intolerant of any other viewpoint other than their own. Not surprisingly, this rigidity of attitude is also very prevalent in Muslim fundamentalists.

For evangelical, here is a definition. 
"The word evangelicalism usually refers to religious practices and traditions which are found in conservative, almost always Protestant Christianity. Evangelicalism is typified by an emphasis on evangelism, a personal experience of conversion, biblically oriented faith and a belief in the relevance of Christian faith to cultural issues. In the late 20th century and early 21st century, Protestant people, churches and social movements have often been called evangelical in contrast to Protestant liberalism. "

For fundamentalist, this is the best definition I could find.

Movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles. 1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming. 2. the beliefs held by those in this movement. 3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines fundamentalism as a usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism. In comparative religion, fundamentalism has come to refer to several different understandings of religious thought and practice, through literal interpretation of religious texts such as the Bible or the Qur'an and sometimes also anti-modernist movements in various religions.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

So Indysport, or anyone.

How can one be called a Christian if you don't have the core beliefs????
ie. The Christmas story, Jesus as the son of God, The risen Christ,
Repentence, Forgiveness, Life ever after. Just to name a few.
So IMHO if you don't believe, don't spin it and still call yourself a Christian.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

zogman said:


> So Indysport, or anyone.
> 
> How can one be called a Christian if you don't have the core beliefs????
> ie. The Christmas story, Jesus as the son of God, The risen Christ,
> ...


Zog...

just like vegitarians. there are several different 'kinds' of these nutts out there because each one has there own belief on what a vege-head is.

i do agree with you that a Christian has to have the ideas and incorperate them into their life. Bible says, beleive, ask, live.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

The bible says a lot of things you would probably not support.

I personally believe it was writen by man and not to be taken literally as anything written by man is imperfect and of questionable motive, its full of contraditions and looney stuff, as is the Koran and probably every other religious book.

The ten commandments is something that I can see as reasonable if anything was the actual word of God thats the closest written thing I've seen.

And something makes me think God would be real concise.

Everyone of the commandments makes sense.

I am definitely not an expert on the bible.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Zog, I agree with msgrude. There are a lots of different people that call themselves "Christian", but may not agree with one or more core beliefs. Just look at the difference between Catholics and Protestants just for starters.

What I think Bobm is getting at is in the definition I quoted above
"a belief in the relevance of Christian faith to cultural issues" which is where I disagree with the evangelicals and many fundamentalist sects of Christianity. where "they" believe it is appropriate to force their particular beliefs into the laws, judges, etc.

As I have stated earlier in other posts, the framers of the constitution got it wrong in the first amendment. It should read freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

Although I agree that anyone can have strongly held religious beliefs, I do not believe that any religion has a monopoly on "God" or the worship of "God" or interpretation of the Bible, or................... although many strongly religious people have told me that they belong to to the one true religion. I recall talking about this in a philosophy course in college where someone posited the question: What if when you get to heaven, nirvana, whatever, you found out that Buddha, God, Allah, were all the same entity?


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

> As I have stated earlier in other posts, the framers of the constitution got it wrong in the first amendment. It should read freedom of religion and freedom from religion.


So you don't think federal, state, or city government shouldn't cellabrate Christmas or any other religious holidays..... no trees, lights, time off work or school or anything :eyeroll: .
Seems to me, our framers were pertty smart folks and got it just right!
These are the times when family and friends become close and the memories are priceless. :beer:


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

Bob I agree with every thing you said in your posts, I have always said show me a hundred christians that are trying to convert me and I will show you 99 hypocrites and I am being charitable.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I apologize if I am wrong, but indsport aren't you looking at this from the viewpoint of an atheist? I was under the impression that you thought all of us Christians were less than intelligent. Sorry if I got that wrong.

To address some points: Bob, our constitution doesn't have separation of church and state, but we still practice it. The original intention was to protect religion from government, not to protect government from religion.

Indsport,


> you may be confusing evangelical and fundamentalist


No, I'm not confused at all, I know exactly what an evangelist is. One of the most famous was Billy Graham.



> their beliefs on cultural and moral issues should be the basis for laws in America and are very intolerant


First off through our founding fathers the Bible was the basis for law in America. Secondly the mantra "tolerance" appears to me to be a liberal tactic to get people to approve of anything. In other words to accept anything, and have no moral compass.



> Not surprisingly, this rigidity of attitude is also very prevalent in Muslim fundamentalists.


Now you are comparing fundamental Christians, who preach love, with fundamental Muslims who are terrorists.



> a belief in the relevance of Christian faith to cultural issues


Most Christians of any faith believe in the relevance of their faith to cultural issues.



> in reaction to modernism





> extreme conservatives.





> return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles





> intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism





> through literal interpretation of religious texts such as the Bible or the Qur'an and sometimes also anti-modernist movements in various religions.


I think your above comments served to fully corroborate the comments of my first post. I find the opposition to secularism the most interesting. No matter what god a person worships of course they will resist a godless society.



> As I have stated earlier in other posts, the framers of the constitution got it wrong in the first amendment. It should read freedom of religion and freedom from religion.


Freedom from religion? For a self proclaimed tolerant person I sure would like to know how many people you have offended. My curiosity is just killing me on that question.

One other point: When you say anti-modernistic do you mean god must change to be excepted by us? Doesn't that appear awfully arrogant to you? That is how I had it explained to me a couple years ago by a person comparable to the new Progressive Christian.

Indsport, it's about a half hour later, and I just started laughing about this. You had compared fundamental Christians to fundamental Muslims, but I was thinking about how Muslims might take your comments. Remember Rhashid (however you spell that)? Do you see the difference now? All Christians on here wish you the best, while muslims would see you as a stairway to heaven for whoever gets to you first.


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

The thing that bothers me, is when my chosen church decides that it needs to take published stands on fundamentally political issues. As far as I am concerned, the only thing they need to take a stand on is whether or not they believe these two statements. 
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only son, and whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life".
and
" Treat others, as you would like to be treated by them".
It may not be good enough for a lot of today's "progressives" but it works for me. 
Plainsman, I think you're trying to "teach a pig to sing" here, but that's what Christians do, isn't it?

:wink: 
Burl


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Plainsman,

I am not bashing religious devout people, I hope you understand that.

I respect those that live a religious life and lead by example.

I am simply commenting on how man uses the belief in God and the assumption that they (men) are arbiters of what God says or wants based on some book that was written by men.

I am definitely out of my league discussing the bible or any other holy book but my possibly jaded perception is that more harm than good comes from people who desire to control others using religion as a justification for horrible acts, supposedly in the name of God.

I pray regularly I hope its heard but I never have had a verbal defineable reponse from God so I'm reluctant to believe others have either, and reluctant to accept that what they say God wants is really what God wants.

The Christian right is just as crazy as the Muslim right and if they lived in a country where they had the power of gov at their disposal, I truly believe they would be just as extreme in their hate of others.

Take homosexuals for example. I have heard some horrible extreme comments from supposedly decent famous leaders of various religions.

I think God loves all of us at least I hope he does, not just the ones that some know it alls say he does.

I really can't seem to convey what I'm trying to say.....

I was raised Catholic for what its worth. I still believe in the tenets of the religion, just have no respect for the church (men) because of the awful scandalous things the catholic priests have been involved in.
No one will ever convince me that this corruption didn't go all the way to the top.

Kind of like congress a bunch of corrupt power mad people that won't do the right thing because it will diminish or risk their personal power.

Our government needs protection from religion, in 50 years when this is a Muslim country, don't laugh it is happening worldwide, christians will be in the minority and then they will be thankful for a neutral Govt and its protection to practice Christian religions.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I am not bashing religious devout people, I hope you understand that.


Oh, I understand that Bob. I just wanted to clear up the separation of church and state intent, and you simply brought up the subject.

I also agree with most of what you have said. We (people) often put Christianity in a bad light by the stupid things we do. We do enough dumb things, we don't need to be blamed for things that were not the fault of Christians. The Crusades for example.

You mentioned how some Christians hate some groups. I'll just say that some Christians hate some people and others say we must except them. My idea is to follow the Bible and love the sinner, but hate the sin. After all I am just as bad as any of those some condemn. It's not up to us to condemn anyone, that will be done by a higher power who has a better idea of who should be accepted and who shouldn't. I hope I am acceptable.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

I've just re-read this thread and I'm still dizzy. Muslim Christian............now there is a oxymoron if there ever was one. The very definition of Christian simply states one who believes in the teaching of Jesus. Jesus never taught the bible........... it did not exist during his life. Jesus never said he was the son of God. Jesus told his followers to go and make disciples by teaching them to observe what he had commanded. His teachings involved two commandments: Love God, and Love your neighbor as yourself. He himself stated that this was the whole of God's commands. Therefore, a person is a Christian if they live as Jesus lived and try to follow Jesus' teachings. Seems to me the main problem with most churches today is they try to re-interrupt the Bible to suit their thoughts for the day and they are doing it from a book that has been rewritten dozens of times in the last 500 years. I'm told I am Agnostic but I consider myself just as much a Christian as the people that attend church up the street every Sunday morning. If I want to talk to God I do it within and I don't need someone to read the Bible for me and tell me what I should think it said.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think we got off subject a little. My original intent was to warn those who vote left or right based on their religious convictions. The new Progressive Christians look like a movement developed strictly for deception. Unfortunately that deception is very serious beyond political manipulation. I find it very interesting that they realize they must deceive to have a chance. 
I hope some of you realize that arguing with you is like arguing with family. We have differences of opinion, but still have much in common. Now get me on second amendment and how the liberals have subverted the intent and you will really get me going. Not every battle to retain freedom is in a foreign land. Party of tolerance?????? Ya, when pigs fly.

In the end every election is like another. Very few of us will vote for someone we like, rather we will vote for who we dislike the least. That's a poor reflection on our politicians isn't it. I dislike deception a lot. Did I mention second amendment? Thought so.


----------



## boondocks (Jan 27, 2006)

indsport said:


> Although I agree that anyone can have strongly held religious beliefs, I do not believe that any religion has a monopoly on "God" or the worship of "God" or interpretation of the Bible, or................... although many strongly religious people have told me that they belong to to the one true religion. I recall talking about this in a philosophy course in college where someone posited the question: What if when you get to heaven, nirvana, whatever, you found out that Buddha, God, Allah, were all the same entity?


How can you have strong religious beliefs without believing you are worshiping the one true God? It would kind of defeat the purpose of having strong beliefs wouldn't it?

And the question "What if you get to Heaven and find out God, Buddha, and Allah were all the same entity? Well if we have already made it to Heaven and find that out it probably won't make a bit of difference because obviuosly we would have all made it to Heaven. You can also turn that around and say "What if your burning in the bottomless pit for eternity and find out that God, Buddha, and Allah are not the same entity.
The latter is probably the question you should be asking yourself.

Someday we all will know the ABSOLUTE truth.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Plainsman, nope, not an atheist. Other than two passages you quoted from my first post, all the other information you quoted was information I copied straight from an online encyclopedia just as examples.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

You're right Plainsman it is deceptive and it is designed as political manipulation. But it is just another play on words that we have all seen before and until the Christians and conservatives start returning the favor, it will continue. Look at the term neo-conservative. You never heard that term until a year or two ago. Suddenly it became the buzz word to call all Christians or conservatives neo-conservative. The word neo simply means "new" but what flashed across your mind the first time you heard the term. By all rights we could call the new Democrats elected last month neo-liberals. But nobody will. We'll just all sit around a complain and whine, all the while the secular group will continue using their most powerful weapon........... time.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Interesting thing Gohon said about Jesus not teaching the bible, I never thought of the obvious fact it wasn't written during his time. Good thing to point out.

I thought Jesus did make some reference to being the son of God though,

Like I said I don't know all that much about what Jesus said off the top of my head but didn't he make some comment to that effect either on the cross or is that just something catholic schools teach??

The republican party lacks the conviction to state conservative principles, thats one thing the Christian right does have I like, strong convictions.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Indsport

As much as I hate making assumptions I wonder how old I am going to have to get before I get over that. I hope I didn't offend you. The only people I have heard use the phrase "freedom from religion" have told me they are atheist. You know, one really nice guy is our mutual friend.

As far as some of those online dictionaries they often track far left I have noticed. It's like in wikipedia I looked up the term Lady. I thought it was very respectful, but someone told me it was not. Wikipedia said it was a disrespectful term. Further investigation revealed sources that said it was a very respectful term. I think some whiners come up with off the wall things to cry about ever so often to keep public attention.



> I thought Jesus did make some reference to being the son of God though


 Bob, I don't remember things well enough to tell you if he said it directly or not, but he hinted at it a lot, and kept referencing his father in heaven. Good enough for me.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Bobm said:


> I personally believe it was writen by man and not to be taken literally as anything written by man is imperfect and of questionable motive, its full of contraditions and looney stuff, as is the Koran and probably every other religious book.


You are more right, and wrong, then you know. Man did write the bible. It is written though with the Holy Spirit's guidance on man. There is a portion written in the bible though, that is written by the One and only true God's hand. The hand of God wrote the ten commandments. Remember Moses (Not Charlston Heston)?

They are called the ten commandments for a reason and not the 'ten suggestions'.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

Hmmm naaah going to pass on this one , no need to tick off the man upstairs anymore than I already have!! :snow:


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

My favorite question to Bible supporters: Which version? King James, King James revised, Coptic or any of multitude various editions of the Bible. Having read portions of at least five different versions when I was in confirmation class years ago, they were all different. 
Nuff said here.


----------

