curiousAtheist

Early Christians, however, would have followed some form of the gospel portion of the Bible, albeit in an orally transmitted form. That doesn't mean they weren't following some form of the Bible just because it wasn't written down. 2000 years later the only remnant we have of that oral tradition is recorded in the Bible (unless you believe the apocryphal gospels are accurate) and in some earlier forms of the same texts that are in the Bible. My question was about how PC accept portions of these teachings that are incompatible with a progressive ideology, or conversely how they justify retaining some aspects of these teachings while disregarding others. The answer that I seem to be getting mostly (correct me if I'm wrong) is that most/many PC respect some of the teachings of Jesus while ignoring the ones they do not agree with. You ask me if I have problem with such people identifying as Christian. People are entitled to call themselves whatever they like, of course. However, essentially all non-Christians, including myself, have the same view of Jesus' teachings. We accept what we like and reject what we don't. You would be hard-pressed to find someone who did not agree with at least one thing Jesus said or is reputed to have said. The only problem I have with such people identifying as Christian is that it causes the population of people who adhere to the belief-system that is typically described as Christian (people who believe Jesus was somehow divine) to be over-counted. I personally would encourage such people to use a less misleading description such as "secular but influenced by Christianity." Of course, that is only my preference, I don't think anyone else has to follow it. I just think people who respect Jesus but don't believe in his divinity or infallibility should question why they call themselves Christians. If it is because they genuinely think that is most accurate way to describe what they believe, I would disagree, but that is their prerogative. If it because they want the privilege associated with being part of the religious majority (in a country such as the United States where most people are Christian), then I strongly think they should reconsider.

I don't understand the use of the word "Christianity" in "Progressive Christianity" then. If the words of Jesus are considered "no more divinely inspired than any other religious text" than why not simply refer to it is religious universalism (the belief that all religions are true) or indifferentism (the belief that having a religion is important but that one religion is equally as good as another).

I'm an atheist, so I think perhaps I can clear up a bit of a confusion here. To most self-identified atheists the term means someone who does not believe in one or more gods. This does not mean that we believe that God or gods don't exist. A lack of belief in the positive is not a belief in the negative. A little analogy to illustrate: Sarah goes for a walk with her friend Timothy. They find a jar of jelly beans. Timothy says to Sarah "There is an even number of jelly beans in that jar." Sarah replies "I don't believe that." Timothy says "So you believe in an odd number of jelly beans, then? How can you be certain?" As you can see, there is a flaw in Timothy's reasoning. Just because Sarah does not accept Timothy's assertion without evidence doesn't mean she is accepting the converse. The only difference between God and the jelly beans is that you can count the jelly beans but you can't find evidence for God. A person can believe in neither God or the lack of gods. In that sense, then, agnostic is not the in between ground between atheists and theist. Most atheists are agnostic as are some theists. To an atheist, though, God is just an unsubstantiated and unfalsifiable hypothesis and so has no bearing on our beliefs or behaviors. Individual descriptions of God/gods can often be shown to be inconsistent with observable evidence though, and in those cases I do believe those gods do not exist in the same sense that I believe I am currently typing on a computer. I believe what can be observed, but I don't believe even that with absolute certainty.

***NOTE: Part of the title got cut off, it should say "Including The Gospels?". Sorry I'm new to this forum, so I didn't know it would do that and I don't know if I can fix it. In the future I will preview.*** I am not a Christian. Neither am I anti-Christian. I would describe myself as a ritual atheist: I do not believe in God or any other deity, but I admire the symbolism, art, ceremonies, and some teachings of many religions, including Christianity. I believe all religions are made by ordinary humans and religious texts are a mix of embellished history and myth. As I understand it, many Progressive Christians accept that parts of the Bible are simply human creations whereas other parts (especially the gospels) are divinely inspired. To be honest, this perspective makes no sense to me. Sure, I see the appeal of this belief. A lot of the old testament is really messed up. Rape, genocide, capital punishment for unorthodox beliefs are all not only permitted but actually demanded by God or his chosen representatives. Plus there is a ton of stuff that just doesn't make sense: Noah's Ark, God being afraid of iron chariots, remnants of polytheism. Jesus seems great by comparison. He takes the nice parts of the old testament (like love and mercy) and emphasizes them while adding his own interesting bits of theology. So why not just keep those parts and throw out the rest? The problem is that Jesus himself affirms all that the old junk both directly and indirectly. Even in the otherwise lovely Sermon on the Mount, he says “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." At its worst, this would mean that all the barbaric laws of the old testament still apply: it's a crime to blaspheme or engage in homosexual sex or follow a different religion, etc. At its best, this would mean that they applied at one time but no longer do. How this acceptable, though? Why would an loving and all-knowing deity give people a set of laws, some of which are fine and some of which are both stupid and cruel, just so he could seem generous for getting rid of them later? There's also the case where is on that hill with Moses and Elijah in Matthew 17. Moses orders the Israelites to rape and murder other tribes for the crime of living a piece of land and following a different religion/belonging to a different tribe. Elijah similarly murdered a ton of priests for following a different religion. Would you be okay if Jesus got all buddy-buddy with the leader of ISIS? Because that would be pretty much the same thing. It would seem to me then that the new testament is inextricably linked to the wicked and decidedly non-progressive values of the old testament (and this without even getting into some of the bigoted stuff Paul says). If you just ignore all of the teachings throughout the Bible that are incompatible with a progressive ideology, what is the point in accepting any of it as divine? Why not just make a new religion that is progressive from the get-go, or just be progressive without the Christian part? I am not trying to proselytize atheism here. I am glad such a thing as Progressive Christianity exists and wish more Christians belonged to it, but I am having trouble understanding the thought-process behind it. Thank you.