Is Liberal Christianity the Answer for Disaffected Evangelicals?

Is Liberal Christianity the Answer for Disaffected Evangelicals? September 9, 2019

Editor’s Note:  Here, one of The Clergy Project’s earliest members tackles a question I have often wrestled with:  What’s up with liberal Christians? I hope we get some responses to these well-formulated thoughts from some current and former liberal Christians in the comments section. /Linda LaScola, Editor

===============================

By Bruce Gerencser
An increasing number of Evangelicals find themselves emotionally, theologically, and politically at odds with Evangelical Christianity. And it’s not just people in the pews either. Evangelical pastors, evangelists, missionaries, and college professors also find themselves in opposition to Evangelical beliefs and practice. Skewered by keepers of the book of life (discernment ministries and Fundamentalist zealots) as Christ-denying apostates who likely never were Christians, these servants of God find themselves increasingly attacked and discredited over their willingness to verbalize and share their doubts and questions about the “faith once delivered to the saints.” I know firsthand the savagery of those who believe God has called them to seek out disloyal Evangelicals. I know firsthand their attacks on your character and family. I know firsthand the lengths to which they will go to discredit your story — even saying that you were never a pastor and or your story is a complete fabrication. Yet, despite the increasing violence against doubters who dare to go public with their doubts, questioning congregants and clergymen continue to tell their stories.

Many of these doubters eventually turn to atheism or agnosticism. My journey from Evangelicalism to atheism was one of a slow slide down the proverbial slippery slope. (Please see the From Evangelicalism to Atheism series) I knew that Evangelicalism was a charade, a religious house built on a faulty foundation, but I desperately wanted to keep believing in Jesus. It was all I knew. So, for a time I tried to make intellectual peace with liberal Christianity, but in the end, I found its arguments intellectually lacking. From there, I thought, maybe Unitarian-Universalism (UU) is the answer. While I met a number of wonderful UU people, I came to the conclusion that UU was just a religion of sorts for atheists and agnostics; a religion for people who loved liturgy and spirituality, but rejected dogma. I found myself asking, why bother?

I have noticed in recent years that supposedly non-judgmental, loving liberal Christians have taken to attacking atheists, suggesting that atheists are no different from Fundamentalists who say that if you can find one error in the Bible then Christianity is false. Atheists are accused of attacking a straw man Christianity, instead of engaging “real” Christianity. While I certainly agree that some atheists are every bit as Fundamentalist as Christian zealots, most of them are not. In fact, many of the atheists I know, myself included, have given Christianity a fair shake. We have weighed Christianity — including its liberal flavor — in the balance and found it wanting.

Liberal Christians rightly condemn Evangelicals for their rigid literalism and commitment to Bible inerrancy. To liberals, only country hicks and intellectually challenged people believe the Bible is literally true, without error, and infallible in all that it teaches.

  • Who in their right mind thinks the earth was created by the Christian God 6,024 years ago?
  • Who in their right mind believes in Noah’s worldwide flood?
  • Who in their right mind believes all those Old Testament stories are true?
  • Who in their right mind believes Jesus actually worked all the miracles attributed to him in the Gospel?
  • Who in their right mind believes in a literal Hell where non-Christians are tormented day and night forever?
  • Who in their right mind believes that Jesus was the virgin-born son of God who came to earth to die for sinners and resurrected from the dead three days later?

Uh, wait a minute Bruce, I agree with you on everything except what you said about Jesus’ birth, death, and resurrection, liberal Christians say. Jesus is real! Jesus died for my sins! Jesus resurrected from the dead! Jesus promised me a home in Heaven when I die! (This is best said jumping up and down.)

And therein is the fundamental problem I have with liberal Christianity. While the Evangelical holds on to rigid literalism and inerrancy, the liberal Christian jettisons virtually everything except the Jesus of the gospels. Liberal Christians believe most of the stories and teachings in the Bible are allegorical or metaphorical, yet when they read the Bible verses about Jesus’ birth, death, and resurrection, all of a sudden they become rigid literalists and can be every bit as Fundamentalist as Evangelicals. All of a sudden, the words of the Bible matter and are to be taken literally, thus proving at some point along the inerrancy spectrum, Evangelicals and liberals alike believe these Bible verses really, really, I mean R-E-A-L-L-Y are true!

Over the past decade, I’ve engaged in heated discussions with countless Evangelical apologists. Years ago, these discussions (and personal attacks) became so emotionally draining that I quit blogging, vowing never to write again. Yet, months later I would arise from the ashes and try again. All told, I went through this process at least three times. Long-time readers sensed a pattern, knowing that, yes,

Bruce will crash and burn, but eventually he will rise again from the dead. 

June 2014 was one of those times. I thought, at the time, 

I am really done with this! Time to move on!

However, in December 2014, I opened up shop again, calling my venture The Life and Times of Bruce Gerencser. Come December, I will have been successfully open and serving up either bullshit or gourmet meals depending on your view of Evangelical Christianity, for five years. What changed? Why have I been able to keep writing week after week, year after year?

Four things stand out, and yes, I am going to bring this post back around to its subject.

First, I began seeing a secular counselor on a regular basis. He literally saved my life. I still see him every few weeks.

Second, I developed close relationships with a handful of readers who knew the warning signs of an impending Bruce crash and burn. They took on the burden of engaging Evangelicals in the comment section, and were willing to warn me when they saw me getting wound up and ready to explode.

Third, A woman by the name of Carolyn came into my life. When Carolyn first contacted me, she told that she loved my writing, but my grammar really needed some work. At first, I was offended, but I can tell you today, she was absolutely right. Carolyn not only edits my writing, but she has also become a dear friend. She knows me well enough to sense when I am deep in the valley of depression and despair, and sometimes all I need from her is a text that says, Are you okay? And, after 50 texts back and forth, I start feeling better! Don’t let anyone tell you that online friendships are of little value. I know better.

Fourth, I learned that it was okay to NOT engage Christian zealots in discussions; that my target audience was Christians who had doubts or questions about their faith or people who had already left Christianity. I decided to let Evangelical apologists have their say in the comment section and then send them packing. I wanted this blog to be a haven safe and free from Evangelical bullies and trolls — a la Jim Wright’s recent comments. All in all, I think I have succeeded.

Every year, scores of commenters end up banned from commenting. Banning works this way:

Run afoul of the commenting guidelines or act like an asshole, and your commenting privileges are revoked. Come the start of each year, however, I clear the ban list, giving everyone banned a fresh start, an opportunity to show me and the readers of this blog that they can play well with others.

Sadly, many un-banned commenters quickly find themselves banned again — thus proving that a leopard can’t change its spots.

What might be surprising to readers is this: only one commenter is permanently banned. Wow, she must have really been a Fundamentalist! Actually, she is a liberal Christian, one of the most irritating commenters I have ever known. Why, you ask, does she irritate me? When pressed on what it is that she actually believes, she always dodges my questions or attempts to muddy the waters. When asked to give me a list of what were her non-negotiable beliefs — silence. When asked to state her cardinal, must-believe theological beliefs — silence. When asked if she believed atheists such as myself go to Hell when they die — silence. I found her obfuscation to be akin to attempting to nail Jell-O to a wall. One time, we got into a discussion about her belief that God is Love. While certainly, the Bible teaches God is love, it also teaches that God is angry with the wicked every day, hates sinners, and can and does act in vindictive, capricious, violent ways. This woman wanted the God of love, but not the God of wrath. She made much of all the places in the Bible that spoke of God’s wonderful grace and love. I replied, “let’s talk about Genesis 6-9; Noah’s flood; where God killed every man, woman, child, infant, and unborn fetus save eight people. By all means, from this passage of Scripture, show me the God of Love.” Of course, she had no answer for me.

A lot of liberal Christians read this blog. They love my frontal assaults on Evangelical Christianity. They love my liberal politics and progressive social values. And I love them too. I am all for ANY religious belief — including worshipping Bruce Almighty — that moves people away from religious fundamentalism — especially Christian Fundamentalism. That said, I truly don’t understand, from a belief perspective, liberal Christians. What beliefs really matter? How can one dismiss, reinterpret, or spiritualize most of the Bible, yet believe in a literal born of a virgin, crucified, resurrected from the dead Jesus? How does someone determine what’s to be taken literally, and what’s not? Liberals accuse Evangelicals of having wooden literalism only when it suits them or when it validates their theology, but how is this any different from what Liberal Christians do? Isn’t this buffet approach to faith just a matter of degree? Why is it laughable when Evangelicals say they believe every word of the Bible, yet dismiss certain verses when it’s convenient or expedient to do so, but when Liberal Christians do the same, it’s somehow different? Different how? Aren’t both groups picking and choosing what it is they really believe and ignoring the rest?

I also wonder if Liberal Christians are, deep down in their heart-of-hearts, Universalists; people of faith who believe all roads lead to Heaven. If this is so, then why try to rescue disaffected Evangelicals from the jaws of atheism and agnosticism? Shouldn’t freeing people from the Evangelical cult be all that matters? If there’s no Hell, no final judgment, no accounts to be settled between God and man, why bother? Or at the very least, why not just admit that you go to church for social and cultural reasons, and your faith gives you a sense of purpose and meaning? You see, I suspect there are more than a few atheists and agnostics hiding in plain sight in liberal Christian churches. I also suspect that a number of liberal Christians are closer theologically to their Evangelical brethren than they are willing to publicly admit; that in the end Christians are going to win the grand prize of eternal life, and atheists are going to be annihilated by God, snuffed out of existence for all eternity — as if somehow that’s loving.

Liberal Christianity remains a conundrum to me. I have asked before for Liberal Christians to explain to me their view of the Bible and how and why they determine which parts of the Bible to believe and which parts, in Thomas Jefferson-style, to excise. So far, I have yet to hear a cogent explanation and defense of liberal Christianity. I can see its effect on the world through its good works and love for others, but intellectually, at least for me, Liberal Christianity remains Jell-O nailed to a wall.

===================

Bio: Bruce Gerencser lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 40 years. They have 6 grown children and 12 grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for 25 years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. He left the ministry in 2005 and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist. He is also one of the original members of The Clergy Project, which began in 2011. He blogs at The Life and Times of Bruce Gerencser, where the above post originally appears.  It is reposted with permission.

>>>>>Photo Credits:   Descent_of_the_Modernists,_E._J._Pace,_Christian_Cartoons,_1922.jpg, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=15816339 ;

"Thank you, as well, for your reflections. Yes, you are right to admire Hume. Easy ..."

“Homophobia” in the Bible – What ..."
"Thank you David. It is indeed hard to argue (in speech or sermon) that the ..."

“Homophobia” in the Bible – What ..."
"As far as the author, You could use for example as a Rational Concordance the ..."

Is Liberal Christianity the Answer for ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Jim Jones

    >. . I found her obfuscation to be akin to attempting to nail Jell-O to a wall.

    My mother sent me to a counsellor to try to get me to go to college. That was his exasperated comment after arguing the idea with me (sans the word obfuscation).

    BTW, I have an idea for a business that would suit those who are not quite out or just out of the faith.

    Low start up costs and risks. I don’t want to do it in any case and also because it will help Christianity (although the smaller, non-evangelical churches and members).

    Any thoughts?

  • Tawreos

    I know firsthand the lengths to which they will go to discredit your story — even saying that you were never a pastor and or your story is a complete fabrication.

    From the same people that will never take even a glance into the history or authenticity of someone giving a testimony as long as it includes the phrase “And then I found Jesus.”

  • (((J_Enigma32)))

    Isn’t this buffet approach to faith just a matter of degree?

    Yes.

    Even for so-called “literalists” it’s still a buffet approach, and this is because, as I’ve come to realize, the values themselves don’t come from the text. The values come from community, and they come from the family. The Bible (or the Quran, Torah, or any other document of that sort) simply acts as a vehicle to justify possessing those values. Thus, Evangelicals are using the same buffet approach that liberal Christians do, but picking different things to justify different values. This is how you end up with Fred Phelps and Fred Rogers in the same religion.

    I can see its effect on the world through its good works and love for others, but intellectually, at least for me, Liberal Christianity remains Jell-O nailed to a wall.

    I suspect that’s because it’s filling an emotional need. As a result, getting answers like that is going to be like nailing Jell-O to a wall, precisely because no intellectual thought goes into it at all. It feels good, and it feels right, and that’s all they need. It’s like trying to explain why I prefer milk in my tea when other people don’t: it’s not a rational choice; I can’t construct a huge 1,000 word argument for why milk is “objectively better” in tea when it’s a matter of subjective taste. I feel the same thing is true for liberal Christians as well. And you might respond with, “yeah, but you aren’t trying to force everyone to put in their tea”, to which I respond with, “and liberal Christians aren’t trying to shove Jesus into every piece of legislation, either.” Which is why liberal Christianity is the superior alternative to conservative/Evangelical Christianity.

  • Tawreos

    Liberal christianity, at least to me, seems to be more live and let live about their faith than the evangelicals that seem to think everyone must adhere to the same rules that they believe god wants them to follow. If you ever see me saying things about christians, take it as read that I am talking about the evangelical end of the spectrum and not, necessarily those on the other end. The only real problem that I have with liberal christians is that they don’t seem to do much to push back against the more forceful and louder evangelicals, which is why they get lumped in at times.

  • Tawreos

    I hope it isn’t Jim Jones brand Kool-aid. I tried that and found no takers. =)

  • Mike Panic

    Is it still a religion without all the hatred and out-groups?

  • The Bofa on the Sofa

    Evangelicals are using the same buffet approach that liberal Christians do, but picking different things to justify different values.

    I agree here. On one side, you have Fundamentalists, are all caught up in the rules of Leviticus, with a NT flair, and are driven, it seems by hate. Meanwhile, on the liberal side, you see the attitude that it’s about things like “Love one another as I have loved you” and “Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers and sisters, you do unto me,” which, evangelicals, at least in practice, tend to ignore.

    Both of them are bible based. The question is which part do you emphasize? Yeah, it might be a buffett approach, but both of them use it, and, at least 1) Liberals are honest about it, and 2) they choose nice stuff to emphasize instead of hate

    I am an atheist, but attend an ELCA church. Holding onto that Jesus rose from the dead belief among liberal Christians may be irrational, but it doesn’t bother anyone. The question is what part of bible teachings are you putting into practice? The ones involving hate? Or the ones involving love?

  • Matt Brooker

    As someone who lives in the UK, most of the Christians I encounter are what Americans would call “liberal,” and I do have a couple of friends who have some pretty “out there” notions regarding Christology and the nature of God. It effectively insulates them from most common counter apologetics, but I do wonder to what extent they have anything in common with the majority of Christians throughout the ages.

  • Matt Brooker

    To be fair, I think the comfort thing operates on both ends of the Christian spectrum: lots of literalists like the idea that there’s an absolute framework for their beliefs without actually knowing or understanding it in any real depth.

  • ephemerol

    When something is literally true, the more literally you take it, the more useful and productive it becomes. For example, EE is just a way of taking quantum mechanics really literally. Nobody has to say, “Well, computers are a metaphor,” because they work. But if a computer was the functional equivalent of a metal box of rocks, saying they’re a metaphor wouldn’t make them function any better. Instead, it would be tantamount to giving up on the idea that computers in general could ever work as was originally envisioned, so the time has come to search for novel uses for them, like maybe as a building material, or as decorative knick-knacks.

    The only reason why liberal christianity had to be created is because fundamentalist christian literalism doesn’t work. The more literally you take it, the more toxic it becomes, ultimately transforming literalists into nasty pieces of work that are unfit for social interaction, the exact opposite of what christianity promises to do for people. There’s no such thing as liberal quantum mechanics, and If christianity worked, there would be no such thing as liberal christianity either. Just the opposite: instead there would be Jesus Engineering.

    Converting christianity into a series of metaphors is the same as conceding that the basic “facts” of christianity are false. It is a confession that the bible is fiction, and therefore the only way to handle it is like you do other works of fiction, as literature. Liberal christianity exists to let everyone know how many christians have given up thinking that christianity in general could ever work as it was originally envisioned, so the time has come to search for novel uses for it, because they know it’s the functional equivalent of a box of hazardous waste.

    And given that people don’t usually try to find alternative uses for their computer when they realize it’s not working as intended, why do they so frequently try to do this with their religion?

  • mason

    After reading Bruce’s blog article I asked myself, just what is a liberal Christian? I found these 10 common points that this Canadian reporter lists. https://vancouversun.com/news/staff-blogs/liberal-christianity-ten-things-worth-knowing-about-this-third-way

    As an atheist for 48 years I’ve found it very easy to talk about religion/belief/non-belief to a liberal Christian. Rarely has this been the case with an Evangelical or any other brand of religious fundamentalism. I also, from my personal experience, have found that most liberal Christians also have part of them, that can be drawn out in conversation, that is clearly agnostic.

    IMHO Christian liberals are far far less toxic, if toxic at all, in American society. They are not anti-science Creationists, homophobic bigots, misogynists, or mental child abusers who use threats of eternal hell fire to indoctrinate credulous children.

    Christian liberals have made good progress in moving away from literal belief in the absurd tales of mentally deluded ancient men. This eliminated all the terrible things that they would have done in society if they had remained Evangelical fundamentalists.

    Liberal Christianity is like methadone for those still addicted to the God/Jesus delusion.

  • mason

    … “why do they so frequently try to do this with their religion?” IMO religion is culture, not a tractor or a computer, and humans don’t like uncomfortable change and will do most anything, like revisionism, tell lies, use political pressure, indoctrinate credulous children, to try and save/preserve their religious culture, even if it has to be modifies or morphed.

  • ephemerol

    Religion certainly is culture. It was my culture. Yet I had zero inclination to try to rescue christianity when I realized it was all fiction.

    But there, once again, I think people are born with a certain innate orientation toward certain values and priorities. I came with an innate primary drive to try figure out what is true. The more I look around, the more my estimation of the demographic that would describe shrinks (I present to the court Drumpf and his base as Exhibit A). I don’t know what everybody else is primarily concerned with, but I’m convinced most people neither value or prioritize probable, putative truth. I know my fundy parents certainly never did. I don’t know what their primary motivation is…living in the best possible fantasy world?

    So, that’s my best working hypothesis at the moment to explain why some people will go to absurd lengths to rescue their religion/culture, while I let it crash and burn under its own lack of steam. It says it’s supposed to be rescuing me, so if it can’t even rescue itself, fᴜсk it. How ironic that it needs me to rescue it. Did I ever really even need rescuing in the first place? I don’t think so.

  • Jonathan Smythe

    Try again. You’re guaranteed to make a killing.

  • Brian Curtis

    Liberal Christianity is somewhere around step three of the “recovering from religion” program. Baby steps. Not everyone can make the transition all at once, but be gracious. They’ll get there.

  • Linda LaScola

    I think that happens in some cases, but, having once been a liberal Christian, I know that there are people who really like it and ride it out, complete with Christian funeral.

  • See Noevo

    “Is Liberal Christianity the Answer for Disaffected Evangelicals?”

    In short: No, the answer is Catholicism.

    So-called “Evangelicalism” is a remove from Catholicism, and “Liberal
    Christianity” is a remove from “Evangelicalism”. These removes are going in the
    same direction – away from Catholicism and towards atheism.

    As I recall, our own hostess with the most-est, Linda LaScola, is an example of this.
    Linda, please tell us again about your step-by-step progression away from the RCC.

  • mason

    Gaslighting, the cornerstone of Christianity.

  • Mark Rutledge

    does not believing in the supernatural make one a liberal? If so then all members of the clergy project are liberals. One thing leads to another.

  • Mark Rutledge

    i never knew a liberal who still believed that Jesus was a divine son of god, who rose from the dead, and ascended in to heaven

  • Mark Rutledge

    religions are cultural/linguistic traditions.

  • Mark Rutledge

    doesn’t anyone who constructs their own world view visit a buffet to learn from various wisdom traditions?

  • I’ve known several liberal Christians who “say” they believe these things, but their caveats and “explanations” destroy the historic understanding of the divinity, death, and resurrection of Jesus (i.e. Jesus was “spiritually” not physically from the dead).

  • “Liberal Christianity is like methadone for those still addicted to the God/Jesus/Divine delusion.”

    Love this line, Mason.

  • *sigh*

  • Years ago, we attended a local Episcopal church. One of the matriarchs of the church came up and warmly greeted us. She cheerfully said, “you can believe whatever you want at our church.”

  • ElizabetB.

    “Jello” is probably a pretty good description! For example, I’d say your list of beliefs, Bruce — “liberal Christians say. Jesus is real! Jesus died for my sins! Jesus resurrected from the dead! Jesus promised me a home in Heaven when I die!” — describes more conservative Christian beliefs, whereas the list Mason linked to is closer to what I think of as liberal Christian. https://vancouversun.com/news/staff-blogs/liberal-christianity-ten-things-worth-knowing-about-this-third-way And then there’s John Tucker, whose “ZeroTheology” [last week] wants to zap people out of the belief paradigm altogether : ) and go straight to living a life of “choosing the transcendent responses of absolute courage, wonder, gratitude, and love.”

    Alexis Record, the fantastic R.D. book reviewer, introduced a while back a way that some liberal Christians decide which views of Jesus and God to keep or discard — Crossan’s “How to Read the Bible and Still Be a Christian” decides what to keep depending on the degree to which an idea is nonviolent justice & love — based on the likelihood that Jesus [whether in history or myth] was crucified by the political authorities. That would mean he would’ve been likely a nonviolent revolutionary — if he’d been violent, they would have rounded up & eliminated his followers too, but as nonviolent, it was only necessary to eliminate the head. Jesus as a nonviolent force for justice & love then would be the measuring stick for keeping or discarding ideas about god throughout the bible — including the last book, Revelation, where a lot of violence has to be disavowed.

    But I think “jello” is probably the best definition : )

  • Brian Curtis

    I see it a bit like evolution. Even if specific individuals never make the full transition, it helps support a general shift in the overall population.

  • The Bofa on the Sofa

    Sure. That’s why I don’t see an issue. It’s not the buffet that is the problem, it’s the things you choose from it.

  • Linda LaScola

    The matriarch’s word were an accurate reflection of many Episcopal churches, signifying genuine openness and also the desire to get new members, which they sorely need, as some peel of for no church and others peel off for a church with more rigid beliefs.

    In many Episcopal churches, you can be an atheist or believe Jesus is the divine son of God, but you are not likely to hear either of these points of view from the pulpit.

  • Linda LaScola

    I can’t speak for all TCP members, but certainly the non-believing clergy I interviewed years ago became more liberal as their beliefs changed

  • Linda LaScola

    Maybe not, but Episcopalians say it when they recite the creed.

    I have noted a lot of non-moving lips during the creed, however.

  • Linda LaScola

    I drifted away as a teen – still going to mass regularly until college. Then mainly attending when I went back home, mainly to be with my Dad, and then occasionally when I had someone to go with. Then only for weddings and funerals, which I often found offensive, because the services were not about the people involved, but about glorifying god (again and again). I didn’t think much about beliefs at all for a long time until I made my study of religion about 14 years ago.

    I don’t personally know any Evangelicals who have become Catholic, but know some who have gone the other direction.

  • See Noevo

    But you didn’t go straight from Catholicism to atheism, right?
    Didn’t you try various denominations or groups along the way?
    What was the sequence?

  • Linda LaScola

    I didn’t attend church for many years. My husband started to go to a unitarian church. I went with him a couple of times, but did not prefer it to reading the sunday paper.

    We “compromised” and attended an Episcopal church where the rector was openly agnostic and there was a mix of believers and non-believers in the congregation. We both sang in the choir. Left that church shortly after the rector retired.

    Went to another liberal Episcopal church with a good choir and left that after a couple of years. I was not into dogma or beliefs and became an atheist on my own, in part while taking church adult education. The Episcopal church would have been happy for us to stay. My husband eventually joined the Washington Ethical Society where he is happy. It’s a nice group of people, but I still prefer reading the Sunday paper.

  • mason

    non-belief in the “supernatural” just makes a person a non-believer in the “supernatural” … any assumption beyond that is pure speculation, just as non-belief in any deity makes a person an atheist, nothing else can be implied or assumed.

  • Kendall Fields

    Your argument is full of holes and you have shown yourself to be a hypocrite throughout all of this. Liberal Christianity is wrong but so is atheism. God’s love showed itself through Noah’s flood because he cared enough about people to provide salvation. God’s righteousness cannot be separated from his love, mercy, grace, etc. Things you would have known if you actually believed. Jesus was born of a virgin, he performed all of his miracles, he died and was resurrected. God created the world regardless of time, All the Old Testament events occurred, Noah’s flood occurred and yes hell is real.

  • That’s the best you got? I’m a hypocrite and I was never a true believer? And everything the Bible says is true?

    You do know,I hope, that just asserting something doesn’t make it true. I looked at your profile. I noticed you frequent atheist/humanist sites, leaving comments such as this one. What do you hope to accomplish with your comments? I’ve been blogging/writing for over a decade. You are Christian 6,666,669 who has taken this approach with me. Yet, here I am, still an unrepentant apostate.

  • Kendall Fields

    You mean like your lies about God being evil, not existing, and everything else you atheists tend to say that are wrong and saying you truly believed yet you abandoned God and try to lie about his nature. You know you can say many things but that doesn’t mean you spoke the truth.

  • I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Isaiah 45:7

    Yes, based on Bible, the Christian God is evil and immoral. Fortunately, his followers are far better people morally than he is.

    I say I truly believed because — drum roll please — I truly believed. That you can’t wrap your mind around that fact or make it fit your peculiar theology is no my problem. I would never question your claim that you are a Christian, and all I ask is that you grant me the same respect and accept my story at face value. If you have not read my blog, I encourage you to start here:

    https://brucegerencser.net/why/

    At the end of the day, I am just one man with a story to tell. You can accept or reject what I say, it makes no difference to me. That thousands of people appreciate my writing is quite humbling. I am grateful that I can be a help to them. That argumentative Christians don’t? Meh.

  • Kendall Fields

    Ah yes the usually Atheist tactic of quoting scripture without understanding it. As shown through the word of God, God is not evil nor is he immoral. Saying that Christians are better than God or trying to say that your group is better than God is foolishness. You don’t believe that you truly were a believer. You can say you did but be honest. I suggest you stop supporting evil and immorality and actually return to God. Just some advice.

  • *sigh* Now you are accusing me of lying. Believe what you will, it matters not.

    Thanks.

    Back to the ballgame.

  • Kendall Fields

    Well considering you just lied about God, I think people will agree that you lied.

  • Linda LaScola

    For excellent depiction of Christian Fundamentalism, see Kendall Fields, above.

  • Kendall Fields

    Why thank you. And you are exact depiction of a foolish atheist.

  • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

    As usual for YOUR KIND, you pitifully just *assert*, while your opposite number(s) *demonstrate* (although in this case you ‘own goal’-ed yourself and are foolishly taking a victory lap while all the spectators look on in pure AWE of how thick and clueless you are…)

  • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

    I’m still waiting, across SEVERAL blogs, for you to *demonstrate* this ‘god’ of yours is more than just a pathological shared psychosis.

  • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

    Kendie-poo, unless you can *demonstrate* why the quote was taken from your bible out of context, then you’re in the unenviable position of defending atrocity by attacking the messenger.

  • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

    Honeychile…until you can demonstrate your ‘god’ even EXISTS, then you’re urinating into the hurricane, and it’s all coming back at you.

  • ElizabetB.

    Seems like in the slow evolution of thought, we took a side trip into hanging on to the thought forms of one point in time, and now it’s creating a seismic jolt to break free of that. In the process we’re splintered now into myriad approaches; so to answer your question, there are myriad possibilities for disaffected Evangelicals, liberal Christianity being one of them. I super appreciate your irenic posts from the watchtower on your vantage point!

    What remains true is the Perennial Philosophy, the Golden Rule, “love one another”

  • mason

    “All the Old Testament events occurred, Noah’s flood occurred and yes hell is real.” This is true, in the mind of a believer in such mythology, whether they be Christian, Jewish, or Muslim fundamentalists. Blind loyal faith is precious to the true believer, and all that counts is perception within the strong walls of belief without evidence. The believer takes great pride in such irrational, anti-science belief, and longs for the kingdom of their Heavenly Deity to be instituted on planet Earth, and for those who do not believe, and will not worship, adore, and constantly praise Mr. Trump, oops I mean the Deity, to be punished in pain and torture forever.

  • Kendall Fields

    You can’t call them “myths” when they occurred. No the blind here would be the deniers of God like yourselves. We all have been blind points in our lives but Jesus sought provide salvation to those who would believe. Now you use the atheist tactic of saying Christians are “anti-science” because we stand against your claims. Belief is not irrational denial of God is the irrational choice. Now you try to say Christians worship Trump even though nearly all of them do not worship him. But then again Atheists like yourself do like to exhalt yourselves. Hell is but a punishment but that is not the main focus of Christianity no matter how much you try to say it does.

  • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

    You can’t call them “myths” when they occurred.

    We can discount them when the only ‘evidence’ for them is a book and the insistence of reality-challenged folk like YOU, Kendie-poo.

  • Stefanie

    that’s because you live in the US and somehow being a christian here means you have to be conservative socially, economically and culturally. When I came here I was a much more conservative christian and supported policies that would be considered liberal here. Now I am a liberal Christian and liberal socially, economically and culturally and still believe that Jesus is the divine son of God who rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. How many liberal Christians do you know? Now you know of one.

  • Leighton Cooper

    As far as the author, You could use for example as a Rational Concordance the Syntopican v1, v2 in the Great Books of the Western World series or even use a subscription to The Great Courses Plus and reduce the speed by combining important modern day discoveries into a progressive sermon. For example I refuse to be so arrogant to believe our society is the only society that has electricity and electronics. The Tower of Bable was a time when there was a division between the spoken everyday language, and the written programming script languages and that creativity focused more on the written language instead of the overly causal spoken languages. In Revelation, God told people to write the 7 thunders down. While their are unconscious traditions, Most people including myself would not focus on that because so many complicated subjects that can require interesting contemplation’s exist for us to add questions into ourselves.
    That is why those books are powerful, they share topic questions that do build a collective soul. I don’t buy into the idea that each living person has a separated soul. We exist within a collection of selves and sometimes a past life can affect your ability to participate without being able to detail fineness and properties out of electronic and microscopic disciplines. For example reading 1/4 watt resistor codes that are too small for my eyes to tell me the colors that give there values. There is nothing wrong with using the Bible as an influence, however it has been hijacked and I wouldn’t trust it to be the only book I am allowed to read. and still be true to yourself. The power of the GBWW is they layout well what many great thinkers of our society and their response’s are put into questions.