So what am I?
So if I want to follow many of the philosophical teachings of Jesus (minus the Gospel of John) but don't believe in heaven, hell, or salvation, what does that make me? A Christian? An athiest? Both?
I have a feeling that if it weren't for my need to be accepted by my parents, I'd probably be a secular humanist. Right now, though, the term "Christian athiest" appeals to me. And might even get me killed. ;-)
I have a feeling that if it weren't for my need to be accepted by my parents, I'd probably be a secular humanist. Right now, though, the term "Christian athiest" appeals to me. And might even get me killed. ;-)
posted by SuperSkeptic at 11:37 AM
3 Comments:
christian atheist.... that's kinda funny.
I myself have simply decided not to call myself anything, and thereby be free to keep my beliefs flexible. "Spiritual hybrid" appeals to me though. make up your own descriptive label.... who says you have to call yourself by someone else's name?
Albert,
I found an enormous amount of comfort in liberal Christianity, and I really liked it for a long time. I discovered that there were people out there who didn't need to follow Christianity legalistically (which was the only type of Christianity I had been exposed to), and it led me to meet some Christians who were not, in my mind, hypocritical. In fact, I'm a member of Sojourners, who call themselves "the religious left." Their journey leads them toward the positive calls of Christianity, like ending global poverty, rather than the fire-and-brimstone side of anti-abortion and anti-gay-marriage that has polarized so many countries. I don't think I'd really categorize myself with them, but I do think that supporting a religion that tries to foster understanding, acceptance, and a continued search for truth is better than ignoring religious groups altogether.
I have trouble with the way liberal Christianity attempts to justify their interpretation of the Bible, in spite of the evidence that the Bible is condemning actions (like homosexuality). Although, that criticism is not reserved just for liberal Christians--evangelicals do the same with the issues of slavery and divorce. Liberal Christians, however, seem more reasonable than legalists, and can often admit they don't know the answer.
Albert,
I found an enormous amount of comfort in liberal Christianity, and I really liked it for a long time. I discovered that there were people out there who didn't need to follow Christianity legalistically (which was the only type of Christianity I had been exposed to), and it led me to meet some Christians who were not, in my mind, hypocritical. In fact, I'm a member of Sojourners, who call themselves "the religious left." Their journey leads them toward the positive calls of Christianity, like ending global poverty, rather than the fire-and-brimstone side of anti-abortion and anti-gay-marriage that has polarized so many countries. I don't think I'd really categorize myself with them, but I do think that supporting a religion that tries to foster understanding, acceptance, and a continued search for truth is better than ignoring religious groups altogether.
I have trouble with the way liberal Christianity attempts to justify their interpretation of the Bible, in spite of the evidence that the Bible is condemning actions (like homosexuality). Although, that criticism is not reserved just for liberal Christians--evangelicals do the same with the issues of slavery and divorce. Liberal Christians, however, seem more reasonable than legalists, and can often admit they don't know the answer.
Post a Comment
<< Home