All things that coming out as a Christian who happened to be gay caused me to wrestle with, resulting in a very simple faith, as you've described, and with God's help, lived out as Jesus described. A tradition I so love in the liturgy of some Christian faith settings is standing up as the Gospel is read from the midst of the congregation. Everything else must be understood in the context of Jesus' words and life. Full stop.
Yes, and amen. Do as Jesus did, and say what Jesus said and you can't go wrong. Don't add anything to your dogma that Jesus didn't require, don't ignore the things that Jesus' requires of his disciples. The kingdom is at hand. As Emily Dickinson said "Instead of going to heaven at last, I'm going all along."
Amen. There came a point where I had to decide which doctrine was more important to me: that God hates gays, or that Jesus died for sinners and has reconciled "all who believe" to the Father. By the grace of God, I chose the latter "as being of first importance".
God doesn't hate gays. He loves all humans, but homosexuality is still a sin and a misuse of sex. Sin means missing the mark. Homosexual sex cannot produce children and it is inherently against God's design.
The first passage you presented, Acts 2:22-24, does not seem to support the main theology you presented. I’ll admit that I have never studied the Bible so this could be answered by the context of the surrounding verses. However, reading just what is put up, the most I can agree to would be an interpretation that would be closer to “God sent Jesus to the Israelites to perform miracles, and as foreseen by God, Jesus was put to death. Then, Jesus was resurrected.” I can’t interpret the passage as saying he died for our sins, especially since the passage says that he was resurrected because “it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.” This to me states that Jesus revived because of he (or God) is too powerful, rather than having any consideration for the sins of humans.
Are we getting confused using differing definitions of what is meant by progressive Christians? I don't calll NT Wright or Tim Mackie Progressive Christians, yet they have a very scholarly understanding of the Scriptures and they differ quite a bit from fundamentalists in their reading of the Bible, having deconstructed a lot of what Reformation systematic theology came up with.
@@glennshrom5801 That isn’t true. N T Wright is an apologist, not a true scholar, as evidenced by his theologically motivated translation of Luke 2:2. He is not even a respectable intellectual, as he opposes evolution by natural selection.
The first problem is trying to understand any part of the Bible, its an ancient, incoherent text that has no place in a modern world, except for historical context.
Well, of course. For example, Fundamentalists don't like to take it literally when Jesus teaches that "there are eunuchs who have neutered themselves for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Anyone who can accept this, should accept it." Suddenly, that's an oblique metaphor for celibacy or chastity. Pssh! If they wanna insist that God made the world in six "literal" 24-hour days, then I'm gonna insist that Jesus affirmed transgender femboys. The Bible says it; I believe it; case closed. Freedom of religion! Think that'll work as a defense when the MAGA religious police come to drag me away? 😸
@@ChristianCatboy "Fundamentalists don't like to take it literally when Jesus teaches that 'there are eunuchs who have neutered themselves for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Anyone who can accept this, should accept it.' ... Jesus affirmed transgender femboys" Names of 2 of those "transgender femboys"? Was Origen such an individual?
Faith and repentance go together. When a person believes on the Son of God, that person becomes a new creation in Christ. Old things are passed away. This is true faith and repentance. Jesus told Nicodemus, "Truly, truly, I say unto you, Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5) A person who has been regenerated, or "born again", has a new heart and mind. A regenerated person no longer views sin as acceptable. Instead, there is a genuine desire for the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ.
IF THE GOSPEL ISN'T, Mt. 24:13-14, it's not the simple gospel. Mk. 1:14-15, he said BELIEVE IT'S THE GOSPEL. NOT the lengthy complicated need for a savior rocket science. Thy kingdom come, simple gospel. LOOKY HERE 1Cor. 15:23-24, simple gospel fulfilled, kingdom delivered up, the END of Mt. 24:13, SO SIMPLE. SUNDAY CHRISTIANITY doesn't know, care, or love God enough to just read and repeat WHAT BRINGS HIS RETURN, the simple gospel ACCORDING TO CHRIST NOT about Christ, HE SAID SO. THUS, the long-suffering of Christianity, especially Sunday Christianity, with a false gospel, is DELIBERATE. It's deliberate as long as the gospel according to Christ is not the gospel, bless your mortal hearts. I love God I LOVE THE SIMPLE GOSPEL. WHEN WILL CHRISTIANITY?
Dear Randall, you are arguing against a similar strawman you charge your fundamentalist interlocutors. Further, what metaethical system are you grounding your charges of harm? You have merely listed a litany of counterexamples what you you offer in supporting a counter position is effused with question begging.
I’m beginning to suspect that Rauser engages with fundamentalist Christians because they’re an intellectual soft target. Why doesn’t he confront the much stronger atheist positions?
He does ... And i don't think that the atheist position is strong. It is harder than fundamentalism, but that's it. Congratulations for having only the second most implausible worldview
Why do that? If you're an atheist, then so be it. If others are Christians, so be it. It doesn't seem that either camp is very open to persuasion. Christians have done much evil in the world. Atheists have done much evil in the world. Christians have done much good in the world and so have atheists. I'm a Jesus follower, my beloved niece and her family, plus my best friend in the world are atheists. We respect each other and never discuss belief or lack of belief. I think the reasons Rauser focuses on fundamentalists is not that they're soft targets, but 1. because we live in a world where dangerous religious ideologies are having a moment, including their outsized influence over the US government, which is bound to increase. 2. He is more like a beacon sending out the message that not all Christians are greedy and power-hungry and believe in the hell of conscious torment, the rapture, the inerrancy of the Bible, etc. And 3. he is giving voice to things that many Christians have thought about, but have never articulated. He is educating them and showing them there is a better way. A more productive effort would be for atheists and progressive Christians to set aside their differences and together try to mitigate the Christian nationalist nightmare that's fast approaching. Many Christians have always stood for ethics that atheists support, such as protesting nuclear proliferation, caring for the environment, feeding hungry children, advocating for prison reform and more. Wage peace by working together rather than waging war against each other.
Frankly, a proper debate between fundamentalists and progressives would be far more interesting than the same old atheist vs Christian debates, but the fundamentalists typically don't want to have anything to do with progressive Christians, as Randal has found out on multiple occasions, most notably when attempting to talk to Alisa Childers over her demonization of progressive Christians, and Gavin Ortlund over his weak sauce and wrong headed defense of Biblical genocide and chattel slavery. I really get the feeling that the popular fundamentalist Christian apologists are afraid to honestly engage progressive Christian scholars and apologists because they're concerned that their core audience may come to sympathize with progressive Christianity if they're exposed to its arguments.
All things that coming out as a Christian who happened to be gay caused me to wrestle with, resulting in a very simple faith, as you've described, and with God's help, lived out as Jesus described. A tradition I so love in the liturgy of some Christian faith settings is standing up as the Gospel is read from the midst of the congregation. Everything else must be understood in the context of Jesus' words and life. Full stop.
Yes, and amen. Do as Jesus did, and say what Jesus said and you can't go wrong. Don't add anything to your dogma that Jesus didn't require, don't ignore the things that Jesus' requires of his disciples. The kingdom is at hand. As Emily Dickinson said "Instead of going to heaven at last, I'm going all along."
@@juliachildress2943 My father often got himself in trouble in Evangelical Land for saying things like, "Eternal life begins now." Oh, Pa! :-)
"coming out as a Christian who happened to be gay"
Did you 'come out' as being: Christian? gay? both?
define irony. Being a bible literalist, until it comes to John 6, which all of the sudden becomes metaphoric or symbolic.
Amen. There came a point where I had to decide which doctrine was more important to me: that God hates gays, or that Jesus died for sinners and has reconciled "all who believe" to the Father. By the grace of God, I chose the latter "as being of first importance".
False dichotomy. Another option is that humans are totally fine the way we are, all of us.
Does God hate mass murderers, for example Hitler?
@@jenna2431 Do you believe "that humans are totally fine the way we are, all of us"?
@@davidford15 Theists certainly aren’t :)
God doesn't hate gays. He loves all humans, but homosexuality is still a sin and a misuse of sex. Sin means missing the mark. Homosexual sex cannot produce children and it is inherently against God's design.
The first passage you presented, Acts 2:22-24, does not seem to support the main theology you presented. I’ll admit that I have never studied the Bible so this could be answered by the context of the surrounding verses.
However, reading just what is put up, the most I can agree to would be an interpretation that would be closer to “God sent Jesus to the Israelites to perform miracles, and as foreseen by God, Jesus was put to death. Then, Jesus was resurrected.” I can’t interpret the passage as saying he died for our sins, especially since the passage says that he was resurrected because “it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.” This to me states that Jesus revived because of he (or God) is too powerful, rather than having any consideration for the sins of humans.
Are we getting confused using differing definitions of what is meant by progressive Christians? I don't calll NT Wright or Tim Mackie Progressive Christians, yet they have a very scholarly understanding of the Scriptures and they differ quite a bit from fundamentalists in their reading of the Bible, having deconstructed a lot of what Reformation systematic theology came up with.
@@glennshrom5801 That isn’t true. N T Wright is an apologist, not a true scholar, as evidenced by his theologically motivated translation of Luke 2:2. He is not even a respectable intellectual, as he opposes evolution by natural selection.
The first problem is trying to understand any part of the Bible, its an ancient, incoherent text that has no place in a modern world, except for historical context.
Thank you for this.
Yes, Jesus died, was buried, and rose again...
...according to the Scriptures.
@@anthonybarber3872 A likely story :)
Excellent points. Thank you.
Depending On how "literal" is defined ..
Well, of course. For example, Fundamentalists don't like to take it literally when Jesus teaches that "there are eunuchs who have neutered themselves for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Anyone who can accept this, should accept it." Suddenly, that's an oblique metaphor for celibacy or chastity. Pssh! If they wanna insist that God made the world in six "literal" 24-hour days, then I'm gonna insist that Jesus affirmed transgender femboys. The Bible says it; I believe it; case closed. Freedom of religion! Think that'll work as a defense when the MAGA religious police come to drag me away? 😸
@@ChristianCatboy "Fundamentalists don't like to take it literally when Jesus teaches that 'there are eunuchs who have neutered themselves for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Anyone who can accept this, should accept it.' ... Jesus affirmed transgender femboys"
Names of 2 of those "transgender femboys"?
Was Origen such an individual?
Faith and repentance go together. When a person believes on the Son of God, that person becomes a new creation in Christ. Old things are passed away. This is true faith and repentance. Jesus told Nicodemus, "Truly, truly, I say unto you, Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5) A person who has been regenerated, or "born again", has a new heart and mind. A regenerated person no longer views sin as acceptable. Instead, there is a genuine desire for the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ.
IF THE GOSPEL ISN'T,
Mt. 24:13-14, it's not the simple gospel.
Mk. 1:14-15, he said BELIEVE IT'S THE GOSPEL.
NOT the lengthy complicated need for a savior rocket science.
Thy kingdom come, simple gospel.
LOOKY HERE
1Cor. 15:23-24, simple gospel fulfilled, kingdom delivered up, the END of Mt. 24:13, SO SIMPLE.
SUNDAY CHRISTIANITY doesn't know, care, or love God enough to just read and repeat WHAT BRINGS HIS RETURN, the simple gospel ACCORDING TO CHRIST NOT about Christ, HE SAID SO.
THUS, the long-suffering of Christianity, especially Sunday Christianity, with a false gospel, is DELIBERATE.
It's deliberate as long as the gospel according to Christ is not the gospel, bless your mortal hearts.
I love God
I LOVE THE SIMPLE GOSPEL.
WHEN WILL CHRISTIANITY?
.........and yet it's this very faith claim ( That Jesus died.....) that underpins all the "harmful theology")
Dear Randall, you are arguing against a similar strawman you charge your fundamentalist interlocutors. Further, what metaethical system are you grounding your charges of harm? You have merely listed a litany of counterexamples what you you offer in supporting a counter position is effused with question begging.
I’m beginning to suspect that Rauser engages with fundamentalist Christians because they’re an intellectual soft target. Why doesn’t he confront the much stronger atheist positions?
He does ... And i don't think that the atheist position is strong. It is harder than fundamentalism, but that's it. Congratulations for having only the second most implausible worldview
@ Please tell me why you think atheism is ‘implausible’.
Why do that? If you're an atheist, then so be it. If others are Christians, so be it. It doesn't seem that either camp is very open to persuasion. Christians have done much evil in the world. Atheists have done much evil in the world. Christians have done much good in the world and so have atheists. I'm a Jesus follower, my beloved niece and her family, plus my best friend in the world are atheists. We respect each other and never discuss belief or lack of belief. I think the reasons Rauser focuses on fundamentalists is not that they're soft targets, but 1. because we live in a world where dangerous religious ideologies are having a moment, including their outsized influence over the US government, which is bound to increase. 2. He is more like a beacon sending out the message that not all Christians are greedy and power-hungry and believe in the hell of conscious torment, the rapture, the inerrancy of the Bible, etc. And 3. he is giving voice to things that many Christians have thought about, but have never articulated. He is educating them and showing them there is a better way. A more productive effort would be for atheists and progressive Christians to set aside their differences and together try to mitigate the Christian nationalist nightmare that's fast approaching. Many Christians have always stood for ethics that atheists support, such as protesting nuclear proliferation, caring for the environment, feeding hungry children, advocating for prison reform and more. Wage peace by working together rather than waging war against each other.
I wish he engaged with Bart Ehrman and Dan McClelan's content. I think they are-especially Dan-making the strongest case against christianity.
Frankly, a proper debate between fundamentalists and progressives would be far more interesting than the same old atheist vs Christian debates, but the fundamentalists typically don't want to have anything to do with progressive Christians, as Randal has found out on multiple occasions, most notably when attempting to talk to Alisa Childers over her demonization of progressive Christians, and Gavin Ortlund over his weak sauce and wrong headed defense of Biblical genocide and chattel slavery.
I really get the feeling that the popular fundamentalist Christian apologists are afraid to honestly engage progressive Christian scholars and apologists because they're concerned that their core audience may come to sympathize with progressive Christianity if they're exposed to its arguments.