Liberal Christians: Why is it bigoted for Christians to believe they’re part of the true religion

[BilliardsBall]

when a conservative Christian says that Christianity is the one true religion, you call them bigots. But, if someone from a different religion says the same thing about their religion, you affirm them.

Hypocrisy? Political bias? Humanist hatred?

Yes, sure, yes.

 

[Skipper]

It's there. Esau and Edom for example. Many examples actually.

Not in the teachings of Christ and it is Christ whom we are to emulate.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Old Testament, not what Jesus taught and lived.

Funny how Jewish audience members could just ask for Jesus' help, but gentiles had to convince Jesus they could have faith. He even calls one woman a dog and says he is only for Israel. If that's not racism, I don't know what is.

 

[idav]

Funny how Jewish audience members could just ask for Jesus' help, but gentiles had to convince Jesus they could have faith. He even calls one woman a dog and says he is only for Israel. If that's not racism, I don't know what is.

Obviously Jesus didn’t think the woman or her people dogs or he would not have granted her request. Though it is a bit elitist sounding for sure. Either Jesus was proven wrong by the woman or he didn’t really mean what he said and was rather making a point to her and others. There are other examples where Jesus stood above the culture of those days and that story is no exception.

 

[columbus]

Either Jesus was proven wrong by the woman or he didn’t really mean what he said and was rather making a point to her and others. There are other examples where Jesus stood above the culture of those days and that story is no exception.

Isn't it more demonstrably true that the Gospel author had a point to make? Especially given that he was unlikely to have been a witness to the actual event, much less had a clear, word for word record of it?
Tom

 

[siti]

Yes. If you find that the faith you left has glaring inconsistencies, (that being a total failure to adhere to Christ's teachings) then follow Jesus' example and expose them like he did with the Pharisees. Just keep in mind though, how those who believed the Pharisees viewed Jesus and his apostle. Not all "failures" are genuine. Some of it is "fake news" so we have to learn to tell the difference. Popularity wasn't going with this religious territory. (John 15:18-21)

Jesus was perceived as a threat to the status quo by the religious leaders who poisoned people against him.....but it was the Pharisees who were in fact the real threat.

No doubt they labelled him "apostate" and applied (or at least attempted to apply) the still divinely approved but more final and drastic equivalent of "disfellowshipping" - John 8:59

The rest of your comments simply prove the point - Christians in most denominations now - just as back in 1st century, and certainly in all fundamentalist denominations - are simply not permitted to interpret the scriptures for themselves - which is kind of odd because the founder of Christianity the "Apostle" Paul certainly did reinterpret whole swathes of the OT - the book of Hebrews (assuming that Paul did indeed write it) is a complete rehash of the whole temple thing and he also re-interprets the Sarah/Hagar story as a figurative illustration. In fact even Jesus himself re-interpreted the Mosaic Law - on divorce for example - that was, at least in part, what got him (and Paul) in trouble with the Jewish authorities (Acts 21:21).

So what has changed? For most people, in most religions - at least the Abrahamic ones - the religious attitude goes hand in glove with intolerance of dissent or opposing views - and that is the definition of bigotry.

The odd thing to my mind is that in the west, everyone, believing or unbelieving seems to orient and position their worldview according to that black and white mindset - the truth/untruth axis as if it is entirely impossible for this religious idea or that philosophy to be partially true or to be both true and false (perhaps depending on whether it is viewed from this or that vantage point at the time) at the same time.

But really, I think truth is more like an enormous mountain - it has many peaks and pinnacles - and there are many ways to ascend it and just because one sees the north face and it looks like one thing doesn't mean that someone viewing the south face and imagining it looks like something else is mistaken or deluded. If we can get that idea enshrined in a religion, I'll join it. Until then, I'm going to keep walking around it and looking at it from every angle I can.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I can criticize someone's belief about having all the answers and also defend the person from having their beliefs misrepresented in an argument opposing them. And I do this for Muslims and Christians.

For example, no matter how I personally interpret the bible, the reality is that young earth Christians denying evolution or supporting anti-lgbt legislation is a tiny and dwindling minority. So characterizing Christianity as anti-science or homophobic is disingenuous, even if there are still some who fit the description in there.
And I'm not unhappy seeing moral conservatism on its dying breath. But that doesn't mean I think liberal Christians have all the answers.

Similarly, many people ignore the millions of liberal Muslims and their actual views to uncharitably characterize Muslims as a group having one monolithic belief. And that's not healthy or constructive. I still don't think liberal Islam is the 'one,' but I won't pretend it doesn't exist because it's easier to generalize.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We were never meant to live in a rubbish dump.

You should move.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It doesn't matter what you do. I have engaged in debates against Islam more times than I can count and I've been called everything under the sun. When I talk badly about Christianity it's silent. You haven't been here long enough.

@YmirGF

I have though...(been here long enough)
Take this opinion for what it's worth, but I've seen plenty of push-back from Christians on (for example) atheists suggesting that all Christians are irrational or illogical.
Never worries me, since half the time I agree (if wince at the irony in complaining that 'atheists' are overstating things about 'Christians', as if either group is homogeneous).

At the risk of making the sort of broad-sweeping statement I am arguing against here, saying anything about 'Islam' probably guarantees you are wrong (or at least, over-generalising). Same with Christianity. Same with atheism.
And simple answers for complex issues are commonly unhelpful.

Conservative Christians who claim Christianity is the one true religion are just as wrong as anyone else claiming their religion is the 'one true religion', to my mind. But that claim doesn't worry me. I would think all true believers (be they conservative or liberal in nature) would see their religion as true, and many would see them as the one true religion. The difference is more around what they see as the implication of that statement.

1) I follow the one true religion, and I hope through my compassion and good example I can show people that God is love.
2) I follow the one true religion, and non-believers are subhumans. I am the tool of God's punishment!

One worries me, one doesn't.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I've seen this, too. Even among liberals there's tribalism and those who don't apply principles evenly.
I think it may stem from the liberal tendency to rush to the defense of an underdog.

Makes sense.
This sounds dangerously like you are claiming that liberals are people though, and not a single hive mind.

 

[SinSaber]

I can criticize someone's belief about having all the answers and also defend the person from having their beliefs misrepresented in an argument opposing them. And I do this for Muslims and Christians.

For example, no matter how I personally interpret the bible, the reality is that young earth Christians denying evolution or supporting anti-lgbt legislation is a tiny and dwindling minority. So characterizing Christianity as anti-science or homophobic is disingenuous, even if there are still some who fit the description in there.
And I'm not unhappy seeing moral conservatism on its dying breath. But that doesn't mean I think liberal Christians have all the answers.

Similarly, many people ignore the millions of liberal Muslims and their actual views to uncharitably characterize Muslims as a group having one monolithic belief. And that's not healthy or constructive. I still don't think liberal Islam is the 'one,' but I won't pretend it doesn't exist because it's easier to generalize.

Though you probably think anything less than affirming is homophobic.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Though you probably think anything less than affirming is homophobic.

I think irrational repulsion of homosexuality is homophobic. That is the quintessential definition of social phobia. No different than having am irrational aversion to someone who is foregn is xenophobia.

I don't believe any religious argument against homosexual practice I've heard has been rational, so far.

 

[SinSaber]

I think irrational repulsion of homosexuality is homophobic. That is the quintessential definition of social phobia. No different than having am irrational aversion to someone who is foregn is xenophobia.

I don't believe any religious argument against homosexual practice I've heard has been rational, so far.

Your original post was 'dislike' instead of 'repulsion', so i immediately disavow your counter argument, because you realized that 'dislike' didn't fit the moderate christian stereotype you believe we are. And, proceeded to change it in a way that made it sound like you were right in your first post.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Your original post was 'dislike' instead of 'repulsion', so i immediately disavow your counter argument, because you realized that 'dislike' didn't fit the moderate christian stereotype you believe we are. And, proceeded to change it in a way that made it sound like you were right in your first post.

No, I changed it because dislike wasn't the proper, accurate term. A hydrophobic chemical doesn't dislike the other chemical, it's repelled by it. But thanks for trying to put words in my mouth, while accusing it of me no less.

 

[SinSaber]

No, I changed it because dislike wasn't the proper, accurate term. A hydrophobic chemical doesn't dislike the other chemical, it's repelled by it. But thanks for trying to put words in my mouth, while accusing it of me no less.

A hydrophobic chemical isn’t capable of acknowledging something humanity, moderate Christians are

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Obviously Jesus didn’t think the woman or her people dogs or he would not have granted her request.

Obviously he thought she was or he wouldn't have called her one. This isn't that hard. I don't know if Jesus became less racist as time went on (the parable of the Good Samaritan shows he or at least someone telling the story thought we shouldn't be that racist), but he was definitely racist on at least two occasions.

Either Jesus was proven wrong by the woman or he didn’t really mean what he said and was rather making a point to her and others.

He was proven wrong. And if he didn't really mean what he said, what else did he teach that he was just spitballing? And what is the point to be made?

Though you probably think anything less than affirming is homophobic.

I'm not into same sex because I'm hetero. What other people like is none of my business and I affirm their right not to be told how to have sex.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

A hydrophobic chemical isn’t capable of acknowledging something humanity, moderate Christians are

Which has nothing to do with my choosing a more accurate word.
I'm not sure what you're driving at, I have stated plainly that I think homophobia is only part of a tiny and diminishing section of Christianity. But it still exist, including continual resistance of gay marriage outside churches and within secular government.

 

[SinSaber]

So your okay of resistance inside church

Which has nothing to do with my choosing a more accurate word.
I'm not sure what you're driving at, I have stated plainly that I think homophobia is only part of a tiny and diminishing section of Christianity. But it still exist, including continual resistance of gay marriage outside churches and within secular government.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

So your okay of resistance inside church

If you'e asking whether I think being anti homosexuality is rational inside the church, no. I still think it's irrational. Am I okay with it? In that I'm okay with some churhes being racist or misogynistic within their own church.

 

[SinSaber]

If you'e asking whether I think being anti homosexuality is rational inside the church, no. I still think it's irrational. Am I okay with it? In that I'm okay with some churhes being racist or misogynistic within their own church.

Your definition of homophobia is dogmatic. That anyone who thinks it’s a sin and still thinks gay people should be treated like human beings is still evil