Losing Faith In Faith

[eyeball]

So the 'Church' of AGW would be better described as a philosophy?

That's almost blasphemous.

[Mighty AC]

You claimed that none of the followers of Jesus ever met him. A number of the writers did. Perhaps some of the later writers did not but there certainly were some that did. The reason for the delay in writing also had to do with the fact that the need for the written word wasn't brought forward until the word started to spread past their immediate area. Most people in that area had either seen Jesus or had heard the stories on first hand accounts.

Which writers met Jesus? The anonymous authors of the gospels never claimed to have met Jesus. Paul, a person that certainly was alive during the supposed life of Jesus, only refers to him a celestial being that appears in visions. Jude, Johanines, Papias, Polycarp, Clement, Ignatius and James didn't claim to have met Jesus either. This seems especially odd for James, whose letter seems to show zero knowledge of a historical Jesus, considering he was labelled as his brother.

The only claim, I know of, in the NT came in second Peter. Unfortunately, this has been proven to be a forgery long ago by both Christian and non-Christian historians. Through analysis of vocabulary, style and events mentioned it is known that second Peter was authored by someone other than Peter. It appears to have been a late and deliberately crafted passage added to silence the doubts of critics at the time.

Paul's writing is interesting because he was certainly alive at the correct time yet he doesn't ever mention any connection between Jesus and the Earth. In Paul's writing there are:

No places - Paul never mentions Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Calvary, etc.

No dates - Paul never places Iesous Christos in time.

No names - Paul never mentions Mary, Joseph, Pilate, Judas, Nicodemus, Lazarus etc.

No miracles - Paul never mentions the miracles/healings of Jesus

No trial/tomb - Paul never mentions the trial or the empty tomb etc.

Nobody alive at the time ever writes about the very magical deeds of this rock star street preacher who met a king and performed miracles in front of hundreds of people. Tales of that kind only start to appear long after the supposed death of the man.

The shift between Paul's celestial Jesus to claims of a historical Jesus made 70+ years later show evidence of euhemerization. That is stories of a celestial being were transformed into historical accounts over time. This process was common for those creating cults at the time. The problem with the original celestial Jesus, is that he communicates through visions and thus anyone claiming to have a vision has some power over the flock or at least the message being put forth. Creating a story of a living god now limits his wishes, commands and beliefs to that written by those who claim to have met him or those who heard it through the grapevine. This makes the cult's message much more stable.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Mighty AC

[Accountability Now]

Which writers met Jesus? The anonymous authors of the gospels never claimed to have met Jesus. Paul, a person that certainly was alive during the supposed life of Jesus, only refers to him a celestial being that appears in visions. Jude, Johanines, Papias, Polycarp, Clement, Ignatius and James didn't claim to have met Jesus either. This seems especially odd for James, whose letter seems to show zero knowledge of a historical Jesus, considering he was labelled as his brother.

The only claim, I know of, in the NT came in second Peter. Unfortunately, this has been proven to be a forgery long ago by both Christian and non-Christian historians. Through analysis of vocabulary, style and events mentioned it is known that second Peter was authored by someone other than Peter. It appears to have been a late and deliberately crafted passage added to silence the doubts of critics at the time.

Paul's writing is interesting because he was certainly alive at the correct time yet he doesn't ever mention any connection between Jesus and the Earth. In Paul's writing there are:

No places - Paul never mentions Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Calvary, etc.

No dates - Paul never places Iesous Christos in time.

No names - Paul never mentions Mary, Joseph, Pilate, Judas, Nicodemus, Lazarus etc.

No miracles - Paul never mentions the miracles/healings of Jesus

No trial/tomb - Paul never mentions the trial or the empty tomb etc.

Nobody alive at the time ever writes about the very magical deeds of this rock star street preacher who met a king and performed miracles in front of hundreds of people. Tales of that kind only start to appear long after the supposed death of the man.

The shift between Paul's celestial Jesus to claims of a historical Jesus made 70+ years later show evidence of euhemerization. That is stories of a celestial being were transformed into historical accounts over time. This process was common for those creating cults at the time. The problem with the original celestial Jesus, is that he communicates through visions and thus anyone claiming to have a vision has some power over the flock or at least the message being put forth. Creating a story of a living god now limits his wishes, commands and beliefs to that written by those who claim to have met him or those who heard it through the grapevine. This makes the cult's message much more stable.

Again, I am amazed at how you expect the same type of documentation and scrutiny as we would in the modern era. This was 2000 years ago...do you not expect it wasn't done the same way a lawyer would today. Keep in mind how many times these writings have been translated. I remember taking a class in unversity a while back that said until recently (compared to when I was in school) they thought they knew what the one Hebrew letter was but they actually mistook it for another. It changed the way things were translated for some details but it didn't change the message.

When it comes to the gospels, I wouldn't expect those exact people to say they wrote it. The gospels are writings 'according to' these people. And as I said, the fear of persecution tied in with a tradition of oral history lead to many details not being written down. This seems very obvious to me but I guess to a cynic it would seem convenient. But again...you can't use our modern way of thinking to assess how they did things.

As for the letters to Paul, I've always viewed his letters as just such....letters. He wasn't trying to document anything and take note of details per se. Again...a message not details. I beleive that most books in the Bible were also edited and some books not included. Like I said, man's invovlement means there will be errors.

[Mighty AC]

Again, I am amazed at how you expect the same type of documentation and scrutiny as we would in the modern era. This was 2000 years ago...do you not expect it wasn't done the same way a lawyer would today.

Historians aren't expecting that level of documentation. The evidence for the euhemerization of Jesus is quite substantial. The only real road block seems to be the fact that Christianity is still an active religion. We don't have apologists for Osiris and Hercules anymore. It's funny listening to devout Christian Biblical historians who openly and unabashedly state there is no amount of evidence that can sway their belief in a living Jesus. Odd they they don't see that as a conflict of interest to their academic pursuits. Dan Barker's work as a historian ultimately forced him to drop the faith and it seems that his books and lectures have made it easier for other clergy to do the same.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Mighty AC

[Mighty AC]

I would have rephrased carepov's last sentence to say that "without some minimum set of common values/ethics, it is simply impossible to maintain social order". But, that set of values/ethics does not have to constitute a religion.

I would say that for something to be a religion, in addition to the other aspects of the definition discussed above, it should include some supernatural elements. If these supernatural elements are missing, then it is not a religion but a philosophy.

Agreed. Culture can be enough to maintain social order and your definition of religion is far closer to the common use of the term. I have only added Sapiens to my future reading list at this point, but carepov's summary makes me suspect the author will take a religious apologist approach. It is a common, but ridiculous, tactic for apologists to equate non-belief with belief; hence, I'm skeptical of the everything is a religion idea.

[Accountability Now]

Dan Barker's work as a historian ultimately forced him to drop the faith and it seems that his books and lectures have made it easier for other clergy to do the same.

Damn it. You changed it from Bart Ehrman to Dan Barker! Lol. I thought I had you for a mintue since two things:

1. Bart Ehrman openly states in an interview that his reason for dropping religion had nothing to do with his study but rather his inability to understand suffering in the world. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeFdhyuVyzI)

2. Bart Ehrman himself acknowledges that Jesus walked the earth and acknowledges himself as a historical figure which is what we have been arguing all along.

The ironic thing is that in our debate I came across a number of things from Bart Ehrman and I chose not to use him becasue I thought he was a bible banger which doesn't really help me prove my side due to bias. I didn't realize that he was actually agnositc and atheist. With that said, I truly enjoyed his interview explanining the difference between agnostics and atheists in that the former is about knowledge and the latter is about belief. Its almost like all of us should be agnostic because no one truly knows if there is a God or higher power. However, we all have the right to being atheist or a believer since its up to each person to decide what they believe in. So no matter how many scholarly arcticles that come out, it will never be a matter of changing the agnostic since we will never know what lies for us after death until death itself.

I do find it interesting that people so devoted to Christianity like Barker and Ehrman are the ones to make such dramtic switches. I find those fundamentalist tyes are so entrenched in each word and detail that when one thing doesn't work out that it breaks like a glass house. This again is why I don't get caught up in the details. The Bible is written by men....its not a God sent artifact that is holy. It has been written, rewritten, translated, adapted and changed by men. If humans are involved then you have to account for error, deviation, bias etc. Thats why I try to live by the more direct revelations of God which are the ten commandments and more so the Golden Rule. There is not to much bias or devaition that can happen from that.

[Mighty AC]

Damn it. You changed it from Bart Ehrman to Dan Barker! Lol. I thought I had you for a mintue since two things:

Yeah, I was actually listening to a talk by Ehrman while responding and accidentally used his name instead of Dan's.

Some believe in a historical Jesus, some believe he was cobbled together based on several different influential Rabbi's and others think he was a mythical god written into reality. As an atheist it ultimately doesn't matter to me though. Swallowing that story on faith seems pretty ridiculous to me regardless of whether or not a hippie street preacher actually lived. Though, I guess believing in the actual existence of Jesus is a must for the faithful. Since most historians in this field are believers, I think the mythicist theory will only grow as fast as the faith is declining.

I do find it interesting that people so devoted to Christianity like Barker and Ehrman are the ones to make such dramtic switches. I find those fundamentalist tyes are so entrenched in each word and detail that when one thing doesn't work out that it breaks like a glass house.

It would be very hard to have to believe the idea that the Bible is the infallible word of a god. I tease the most lax Christians about the BS they cling to and the lack of evidence; imagine trying to defend both testaments without the flexibility to blame men for just making stuff up.

I'm not married to any particular ideas and feel comfortable following the evidence on most topics. The best personal estimation of what it must be like to be a Christian is trying to defend the fact that I eat meat to a herbivore. They hold all the cards, ethically, environmentally and nutritionally. I'm pretty much left with "shut up, I like it!"

[Accountability Now]

I'm not married to any particular ideas and feel comfortable following the evidence on most topics. The best personal estimation of what it must be like to be a Christian is trying to defend the fact that I eat meat to a herbivore. They hold all the cards, ethically, environmentally and nutritionally. I'm pretty much left with "shut up, I like it!"

But again, there is no end game with this argument until you die or there is some sort of magical revelation that clears it all up one way or another. A lot of the arguments for religion are based on biblical text which has holes throughout and was written by men with bias. Even the arguments against are very circumstantial and attack points that are somewhat irrelevent and in the end should make us question the details but not the message.

I certainly enjoy a good discussion on religion but there really is no winning or losing the argument.

One thing I find particularily of interest is how people who are highly religious their whole lives can turn from it and stop believing just like that. Convserely you have the born agains who never believed once but through bad times turn to God/Jesus and now they are the most tenacious believers. To me both of these types of people are not an indication of how religion should be defined. Clearly these people have something missing or are fragile enough to not have the capacities to deal with life problems without some sort of crutch.

[Big Guy]

In an intelligent discussion there are no winners or losers. Both sides are better for the experience and for the opportunity to respond with civility and either question or reinforce their particular point of view.

I have always believed that the positive aspect of a any discussion is not being won over but by being able to defend a position.

Another positive outcome is the information shared with those who are listening. I have been listening.

[carepov]

Agreed. Culture can be enough to maintain social order and your definition of religion is far closer to the common use of the term. I have only added Sapiens to my future reading list at this point, but carepov's summary makes me suspect the author will take a religious apologist approach. It is a common, but ridiculous, tactic for apologists to equate non-belief with belief; hence, I'm skeptical of the everything is a religion idea.

I too was very skeptical, and prior to reading Sapiens I looked at religion and ideology as very distinct. Now, I am not so sure...:

For Dr Harari, a belief system has to fulfil two criteria for it to be called a religion:

1) Religion must believe in a superhuman (not necessarily supernatural) order

2) Religion establishes norms and values which are derived from the superhuman order

http://awaisaftab.blogspot.ca/2013/11/religion-through-history.html

Do you beleive in Human Rights?

[Bonam]

I too was very skeptical, and prior to reading Sapiens I looked at religion and ideology as very distinct. Now, I am not so sure...:

For Dr Harari, a belief system has to fulfil two criteria for it to be called a religion:

1) Religion must believe in a superhuman (not necessarily supernatural) order

2) Religion establishes norms and values which are derived from the superhuman order

http://awaisaftab.blogspot.ca/2013/11/religion-through-history.html

Do you beleive in Human Rights?

In his three examples of liberal humanism, social humanism, and evolutionary humanism... how are any of those believing in a "superhuman order". In each case, the primary values are all about humans: liberty of individual humans, equality between humans, etc. What is "belief in a superhuman order" anyway?

[carepov]

In his three examples of liberal humanism, social humanism, and evolutionary humanism... how are any of those believing in a "superhuman order". In each case, the primary values are all about humans: liberty of individual humans, equality between humans, etc. What is "belief in a superhuman order" anyway?

Good question, I don't know the answer, but as he says:

"calling them religion is a semantic quibble, and calling them ideologies instead of religion doesn't change the actual reality..."

whether or not you call them a religion or ideology, each requires faith in an imagined order, similar to religions.

[Bonam]

Good question, I don't know the answer, but as he says:

"calling them religion is a semantic quibble, and calling them ideologies instead of religion doesn't change the actual reality..."

whether or not you call them a religion or ideology, each requires faith in an imagined order, similar to religions.

What faith in an imagined order is required in "liberal humanism". As he describes it, it is the desire for individual liberty/freedom. This is the default self-interest of almost any individual (except those that think they are in a position to constrain the freedom of others for their own benefit, but that's a tiny minority who wield a lot of power). Do you have to have belief in an "imagined order" to act as best you can in your own self-interest?

Whether you want to call these philosophies religions or not may be a semantic distinction, but an important one not a quibble. Language shapes how people perceive and discuss the world. If different parties can't agree on the definitions of words they are using in their discussion, they cannot have any meaningful conversation. The first part of any discussion is to make sure both sides agree on semantics. If one person is talking about religion and is meaning by that term what we classically think of as religions, and someone replies and talks about socialism as a religion, there will be much confusion in the discussion. Or consider the example of atheism. Thanks to how it is discussed in the American media, most Americans think that atheism is a religion (I've heard this said many times by otherwise intelligent people). That belief, "a semantic difference", instantly makes it almost impossible to talk to them about the topic in a meaningful way.

As for non-semantic differences... consider that all the things we classically consider as religions also happen to be mutually exclusive. You can believe in Christianity or in Islam, but not both at the same time. Exclusivity is a property of what we normally consider religions. On the other hand, philosophies like the ones you listed can co-exist both with each other and with religions.

Sorry, just not buying the argument. There is more than one thing under the Sun, not everything has to be well defined by one word. Religions are one thing. Philosophies are another. Ideologies yet a third. Beliefs yet a fourth. Faith yet a fifth. There is no reason to try to force everything under one definition except to make language less precise so that real distinctions cannot as easily be made. The more we talk about this the more I come to conclude that the goal of the author you reference is obfuscation rather than elucidation.

Edited May 9, 2015 by Bonam

[carepov]

What faith in an imagined order is required in "liberal humanism". As he describes it, it is the desire for individual liberty/freedom. This is the default self-interest of almost any individual (except those that think they are in a position to constrain the freedom of others for their own benefit, but that's a tiny minority who wield a lot of power). Do you have to have belief in an "imagined order" to act as best you can in your own self-interest?

This belief that individual rights are the top sacred value on which we base our ordered society is so well established in the West that we do not question it. The best example is out belief in human rights. Human rights are myths that only work if enough people believe in them. If it is so obvious that this is the proper order of things why has this been not the case for 99.9 % of human history?

Whether you want to call these philosophies religions or not may be a semantic distinction, but an important one not a quibble. Language shapes how people perceive and discuss the world. If different parties can't agree on the definitions of words they are using in their discussion, they cannot have any meaningful conversation. The first part of any discussion is to make sure both sides agree on semantics. If one person is talking about religion and is meaning by that term what we classically think of as religions, and someone replies and talks about socialism as a religion, there will be much confusion in the discussion. Or consider the example of atheism. Thanks to how it is discussed in the American media, most Americans think that atheism is a religion (I've heard this said many times by otherwise intelligent people). That belief, "a semantic difference", instantly makes it almost impossible to talk to them about the topic in a meaningful way.

OK, going forward in our discussion we can use your definitions.

As for non-semantic differences... consider that all the things we classically consider as religions also happen to be mutually exclusive. You can believe in Christianity or in Islam, but not both at the same time. Exclusivity is a property of what we normally consider religions. On the other hand, philosophies like the ones you listed can co-exist both with each other and with religions.

You can certainly believe in more than religion at a time. It is called religious syncretism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretism

A good example is the combination of Hinduism and Buddhism during the Khmer Empire in the 12th century.

Sorry, just not buying the argument. There is more than one thing under the Sun, not everything has to be well defined by one word. Religions are one thing. Philosophies are another. Ideologies yet a third. Beliefs yet a fourth. Faith yet a fifth. There is no reason to try to force everything under one definition except to make language less precise so that real distinctions cannot as easily be made. The more we talk about this the more I come to conclude that the goal of the author you reference is obfuscation rather than elucidation.

You are misunderstanding me and prejudging Harari's work. I agree that they are separate things - but they do share many important commonalities, more than most of us realize. Understanding religion is certainly helpful (if not essential) to understanding ideology, philosophy, and even other imagined orders such as money and corporations. Humans capacity to create and share common myths is one of the distinguishing features that make our species unique and has allowed us to cooperate in large numbers.

[Bonam]

This belief that individual rights are the top sacred value on which we base our ordered society is so well established in the West that we do not question it. The best example is out belief in human rights. Human rights are myths that only work if enough people believe in them. If it is so obvious that this is the proper order of things why has this been not the case for 99.9 % of human history?

On the contrary, individual rights are constantly questioned in our society, as they come into conflict with so called "collective rights" or "the common good" or a government's desire to raise revenue. Modern Western societies are based primarily on pragmatism rather than ideology... they employ a mix of free market economics and government controls, capitalism and socialism, a delicate balance between individual rights and group cohesion, etc. No single ideology consistently supports all of these positions, rather, it is a mish-mash of different things put together through experience in a way that seems to work. And, it changes constantly as things that used to work well enough cease to do so and have to be changed.

The people that want to enshrine individual rights as a paramount value are libertarians, and they are a tiny minority in all Western countries.

You are misunderstanding me and prejudging Harari's work. I agree that they are separate things - but they do share many important commonalities, more than most of us realize. Understanding religion is certainly helpful (if not essential) to understanding ideology, philosophy, and even other imagined orders such as money and corporations. Humans capacity to create and share common myths is one of the distinguishing features that make our species unique and has allowed us to cooperate in large numbers.

You're playing a bit fast and loose with lists and words here. Ideology, philosophy, money, corporations.... these are not all one category of thing. Neither are these things "myths", Money and corporations are human-created things, but they are not myths, they are real. Corporations exist, verifiably, tangibly. Same with money. We make them exist, and some forms of money exist only as electronic records, but they exist nonetheless. I think the word you might be looking for rather than "myths" is "abstraction".

But yes, understanding religion is certainly important if one wants to understand the origin and evolution of various human cultures and philosophies and the development of the human condition.

Edited May 9, 2015 by Bonam

[GostHacked]

The people that want to enshrine individual rights as a paramount value are libertarians, and they are a tiny minority in all Western countries.

I think when it comes down to it, we'd all fit into that category. Mainly because we don't really know what true individual rights are. We've been born into this system of governance and laws that we have no idea what true rights and freedoms look like. There is always a caveat.

[carepov]

On the contrary, individual rights are constantly questioned in our society, as they come into conflict with so called "collective rights" or "the common good" or a government's desire to raise revenue. Modern Western societies are based primarily on pragmatism rather than ideology... they employ a mix of free market economics and government controls, capitalism and socialism, a delicate balance between individual rights and group cohesion, etc. No single ideology consistently supports all of these positions, rather, it is a mish-mash of different things put together through experience in a way that seems to work. And, it changes constantly as things that used to work well enough cease to do so and have to be changed.

The people that want to enshrine individual rights as a paramount value are libertarians, and they are a tiny minority in all Western countries.

I agree that there is a mish-mash of ideologies. I would also add nationalism, consumerism and romanticism to your list. Nonetheless it is individual rights that top the list as seen in our constitutions.

You're playing a bit fast and loose with lists and words here. Ideology, philosophy, money, corporations.... these are not all one category of thing. Neither are these things "myths", Money and corporations are human-created things, but they are not myths, they are real. Corporations exist, verifiably, tangibly. Same with money. We make them exist, and some forms of money exist only as electronic records, but they exist nonetheless. I think the word you might be looking for rather than "myths" is "abstraction".

But yes, understanding religion is certainly important if one wants to understand the origin and evolution of various human cultures and philosophies and the development of the human condition.

My understanding of abstraction is that by definition it is not real. What is tangible about a corporation? Here is an excerpt that links these abstractions (no, they are not he same but have the same origins):

http://www.ynharari.com/power-and-imagination/articles/the-most-important-things-in-the-world-exist-only-in-our-imagination/

[littleguy1]

Being ostracized is not just an atheist reality. North America is classified a very Christian part of the world so anyone that doesn't believe will be in the minority. That being said, all minorities are treated badly no matter what they believe, the color they are, the person they love, the place they originate from or the sex they were born with. As long as the powerful and people in control continue to be white,older,greedy,males, things will never change.

Prejudice and bigotry will only be eliminated when more open minded people rise to the positions of power and influence. Politics is bought and paid for and if you haven't noticed, only recently has the old boys club started to disappear. If the same thing can happen in the halls of supporting candidates then and only then will a better representation of the people will appear. Too many powerful people set the agenda and place candidates of their choosing so as to fulfill their agendas.

Being an atheist can be an awakening and possibly shine light on these practices of hate and exclusion. Take solice that putting up with the ignorance and shortsightedness of others makes you the better person. I too have found constructive and meaningful contributions at these types of events.

[Mighty AC]

Being ostracized is not just an atheist reality. North America is classified a very Christian part of the world so anyone that doesn't believe will be in the minority.

There are certainly more common forms of discrimination in North America; however, I was surprised by the prevalence of this form in the US. I was not only surprised by the number of people that had lost their jobs for simply not being Christian, but also by their acceptance of this reality. The people I met weren't angry like I would have been; instead they just expect that their lack of spiritual beliefs will always eventually be discovered and they will be forced to find a new job. The normalcy is what disgusts me the most. Anyway, this thread highlights a form of discrimination that most do not know exists, perpetrated by those who proclaim to have superior morals.

That being said, all minorities are treated badly no matter what they believe, the color they are, the person they love, the place they originate from or the sex they were born with. As long as the powerful and people in control continue to be white,older,greedy,males, things will never change.

I think the opposite is true. We will continue to be led primarily by old, white, male, Christians until society demands otherwise. People in power will use any means necessary to stay there. Currently, we see conservatives taking some hateful positions because they expect to benefit from the religious vote. This similar to the practice of denying science and reality to obtain funding from the fossil fuel sector. Farces like these will only cease when voters punish perpetrators at the ballot box.

[littleguy1]

I too was raised in aCatholic family and only when I became an adult living on my own did I check out other religionsreligions, research the various holy books of religion and make the decision that man created god not the other way around. There is common figures in all the holy books and a common theme of preaching in parables or in my mind fairy tales.

The thing that really convinced me was seeing supposed followers of Christ being less than Christlike in their behavior. I also decided that most conflicts around the world were faith based and thus also contrary to the teachings of Christ.

I can understand people needing religion because it does supply a forum for social interaction and it also gives people that false hope of an after life and eternal reward. With people always looking for why we are here and where we came from, a couple of imaginative people decided to create a deity that was so powerful everything came from it. Well, science had basically shot holes in that by proving the world is much older than 6000 years so they must find other ways to defend their beliefs.

[carepov]

I also decided that most conflicts around the world were faith based and thus also contrary to the teachings of Christ.

How about we play a game?

If it's OK with you, let's define faith-based or religious wars as wars where a significant causal factor of the war is opposing religious views. Then let's compare the list of non-religious wars with a list of faith-based conflicts over the last 200 years?

Well, science had basically shot holes in that by proving the world is much older than 6000 years so they must find other ways to defend their beliefs.

If you take religious stories figuratively, you can easily hold religious beliefs without any significant scientific contradictions.

[Mighty AC]

Yes, it's important to have the flexibility to move from believing the bible is the inerrant word of a god, to some of it is allegorical but some is real, to let's pretend most of the book doesn't exist and God really just means love thy neighbour. Unless your neighbour is gay, because even though the book was figurative about the creation story, the flood, burning bushes, talking donkeys and snakes, eternity in hell, jealous killings, slavery, misogyny, shellfish, garments made of mixed fibers, etc. God really does hate fags.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Mighty AC

[carepov]

Yes, it's important to have the flexibility to move from believing the bible is the inerrant word of a god, to some of it is allegorical but some is real, to let's pretend most of the book doesn't exist and God really just means love thy neighbour. Unless your neighbour is gay, because even though the book was figurative about the creation story, the flood, burning bushes, talking donkeys and snakes, eternity in hell, jealous killings, slavery, misogyny, shellfish, garments made of mixed fibers, etc. God really does hate fags.

There are plenty of religious people, including many homosexuals obviously, that do not fit your stereotype.

[GostHacked]

There are plenty of religious people, including many homosexuals obviously, that do not fit your stereotype.

it's not his stereotype. It's the word of the bible!

[Mighty AC]

I do think that it's great that so many Christians are reinterpreting or rebranding Christianity for the kinder, gentler world we live in. However, if humans are free to invent a new superior moral position for their god, doesn't that suggest that this god isn't real? Why keep the fairy tale baggage when humans are already superior to the gods?