Opinion of "Non-practicing Christians"?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If they don't go to church but still pray and have a relationship with God still I can understand it. If they're actually atheist/agnostic than it's utterly absurd and a contradiction.

By this I also mean they don't pray or do any sort of religious activities at home either yeah. Basically a sort of "Christian in name only" kind of person; which is very common in my experience.

Not in the US.

Yes it is. Maybe not in your social circles, but in plenty of others.

The distinction between adherence to a religion as a belief system and adherence to it as an identity marker of some other kind is nothing new. Cultural Christians come from all walks of life, just like secular Jews do. So they're impossible to judge as "FF" or "HP" as a group.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If they really believed that the Bible was the word of God, they'd be following it to the letter. This goes for other so-called """practicing""" Christians too.

As long as I live I'll never understand why people with attitudes about religion such as yours are so insistent on letting fundamentalists and literalists set the conversation for how religious texts are to be analyzed. It shows a significantly greater lack of intellectual curiosity than merely having a fiercely antireligious ideological perspective (which plenty of great thinkers did and still do).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

And I'll never understand how people can *genuinely believe* that a text is the almighty command of God and not follow it to the letter. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You understand that large portions of the book are not supposed to be followed to the letter, yes? The parable of the tenants (Matthew 21:33) is not supposed to be advice about landlord-tenant relationships.

I understand that the parables are meant to establish generalized moral truths rather than present literal specific examples, yes.

Then you should understand in principle why interpretations exist in which other parts of the Bible are understood to have been given allusively or figuratively as well, even if your reading of the text leads you to find those interpretations unconvincing.* And from that you should be able to understand why professional scholars of the Bible (including nonreligious ones!) tend to conclude that some parts of the text were understood literally by the original audience and other parts were not.

If you think the existence of a deity who sometimes imparts information to humanity in an allusive or figurative way is even more implausible (from your perspective) than the existence of a deity who invariably imparts it literally, then that's your prerogative, but that's a theological opinion in and of itself, even though in your case it's only a hypothetical one.

*In the case of some stories, such as the Resurrection, I would be inclined to agree with you that non-literal interpretations stretch plausibility.

That is still not an explanation of why Christians do not abide by those morals.

We're all sinners.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

only someone who entertains the hypothesis that there is a higher consciousness of sorts outside of spacetime would have any motivation whatsoever to try to ponder what that being might be like and critically analyze/try to make sense of the more confusing, contradictory or especially unbelievable parts of a grouping of texts many allege to contain significant divine truth.

Don't be ridiculous. Plenty of atheists out there are intellectually curious about the Bible; Dule just doesn't happen to be one of them.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Then you should understand in principle why interpretations exist in which other parts of the Bible are understood to have been given allusively or figuratively as well, even if your reading of the text leads you to find those interpretations unconvincing.* And from that you should be able to understand why professional scholars of the Bible (including nonreligious ones!) tend to conclude that some parts of the text were understood literally by the original audience and other parts were not.

If you think the existence of a deity who sometimes imparts information to humanity in an allusive or figurative way is even more implausible (from your perspective) than the existence of a deity who invariably imparts it literally, then that's your prerogative, but that's a theological opinion in and of itself, even though in your case it's only a hypothetical one.

For the Bible's parables? Yes, this makes sense. For the Bible's literal advice on the treatment of slaves and homosexuals? No, this is not a fair argument. It is hard to take passages that explicitly command slaves to obey their masters as anything other than literal.

Okay, but that's not a literal/figurative distinction; it's a divine inspiration/human authorship distinction (viz., when we say the Bible is "the word of God", do we mean it was literally dictated from on high the way the Quran is supposed to have been, or do we mean something else?). You're obviously free to think it's utter ass-covering BS to even ask that question--I'd expect any atheist worth their salt to think that--but it's not actually the same question, and treating it as a question of literal vs. figurative language is muddying the waters.

We're all sinners.

An abominably lame excuse.

Only if you haven't given the subject much thought. Every single one of us holds principles that we don't live out; of course, not all of those principles come from a divine author, but acknowledging God's authority and feeling it are two different things. This is referred to as "separation from God".

I dunno, I don't always follow my libertarian principles, but I'd probably do a much better job if I thought I'd burn for all eternity if I didn't.

This is a glib way of asserting your own self-perceived moral superiority. Not a cute look.

Don't be ridiculous. Plenty of atheists out there are intellectually curious about the Bible; Dule just doesn't happen to be one of them.

I was intellectually curious enough about the Bible to read it, which is more than can be said for quite a lot of Christians.

Touché.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Then you should understand in principle why interpretations exist in which other parts of the Bible are understood to have been given allusively or figuratively as well, even if your reading of the text leads you to find those interpretations unconvincing.* And from that you should be able to understand why professional scholars of the Bible (including nonreligious ones!) tend to conclude that some parts of the text were understood literally by the original audience and other parts were not.

If you think the existence of a deity who sometimes imparts information to humanity in an allusive or figurative way is even more implausible (from your perspective) than the existence of a deity who invariably imparts it literally, then that's your prerogative, but that's a theological opinion in and of itself, even though in your case it's only a hypothetical one.

For the Bible's parables? Yes, this makes sense. For the Bible's literal advice on the treatment of slaves and homosexuals? No, this is not a fair argument. It is hard to take passages that explicitly command slaves to obey their masters as anything other than literal.

Okay, but that's not a literal/figurative distinction; it's a divine inspiration/human authorship distinction (viz., when we say the Bible is "the word of God", do we mean it was literally dictated from on high the way the Quran is supposed to have been, or do we mean something else?). You're obviously free to think it's utter ass-covering BS to even ask that question--I'd expect any atheist worth their salt to think that--but it's not actually the same question, and treating it as a question of literal vs. figurative language is muddying the waters.

Wait, I'm genuinely confused here. That's not the distinction I was trying to make at all. Are you saying that the Bible doesn't contain passages that explicitly endorse slavery (or at least are ambivalent about the morality of it)?

No, I'm not saying that. Let me rephrase--the typical Christian response to those passages today (and in some cases surprisingly far back in the past as well) is to say that these passages reflect biases of the human authors (or amanuenses) who wrote those books. It's not (typically) claimed that those human authors didn't actually have those attitudes; it is indeed pretty obvious from the text that they did.

Of course, you're free to find this a convenient excuse given that that could be applied to everything else in the Bible as well, but we should all be clear about which aspects of Christian Biblical interpretation you're criticizing at a given time.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Slaves in ancient Israel were more like servants than slaves as we think of them in the American context.

That was long thought to be true, yes.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

No, I'm not saying that. Let me rephrase--the typical Christian response to those passages today (and in some cases surprisingly far back in the past as well) is to say that these passages reflect biases of the human authors (or amanuenses) who wrote those books. It's not (typically) claimed that those human authors didn't actually have those attitudes; it is indeed pretty obvious from the text that they did.

Of course, you're free to find this a convenient excuse given that that could be applied to everything else in the Bible as well, but we should all be clear about which aspects of Christian Biblical interpretation you're criticizing at a given time.

If the excuse for not following the Bible to the letter is that it contains human biases, then it logically follows that none of the content of the Bible can be taken literally without taking those biases into account.

Well, yes.

This upends all Christian teachings.

This doesn't follow.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The fact that so many people in this thread are so baffled (even offended!) at the idea that somebody might identify with a religion culturally rather than spiritually/ideologically is, itself, baffling. This is your brain on modernism, I guess.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The fact that so many people in this thread are so baffled (even offended!) at the idea that somebody might identify with a religion culturally rather than spiritually/ideologically is, itself, baffling. This is your brain on modernism, I guess.

If this is addressing my post, I'm offended by the way the term "Non-practicing Christian" conflates the vaguely not as devout cultural Christians that you are referring to and atheists/agnostics who have consciously abandoned the Christianity that they were raised.

I was more addressing my fellow practicing Christians in this thread who are acting bent out of shape that someone might identify as Christian for cultural reasons. Your point is well-taken.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It is very clear in the Bible that sex is only allowable within marriage.

Is it, though? I believe this myself, but I don't know that I'd say it's "very clear" from the Biblical text.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It is very clear in the Bible that sex is only allowable within marriage.

Is it, though? I believe this myself, but I don't know that I'd say it's "very clear" from the Biblical text.

IIRC when Paul talks about sexual immorality it was understood that he was including sex outside of marriage.

Yes, but the sexual ethics taught by Jesus and Paul are explicitly stated, by Jesus Himself, to be more stringent than those in the Sinaitic covenant, and in ways that directly involve the understanding of what constitutes fornication or adultery.

I'm not saying this to sh**t on the Hebrew Bible or the Law; I've made my dislike for theologies that bracket out that stage of salvation history very clear on this board in the past. But your defenses of it to afleitch so far in this thread have struck me as handwaving.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

No, I'm not saying that. Let me rephrase--the typical Christian response to those passages today (and in some cases surprisingly far back in the past as well) is to say that these passages reflect biases of the human authors (or amanuenses) who wrote those books. It's not (typically) claimed that those human authors didn't actually have those attitudes; it is indeed pretty obvious from the text that they did.

Of course, you're free to find this a convenient excuse given that that could be applied to everything else in the Bible as well, but we should all be clear about which aspects of Christian Biblical interpretation you're criticizing at a given time.

If the excuse for not following the Bible to the letter is that it contains human biases, then it logically follows that none of the content of the Bible can be taken literally without taking those biases into account.

Well, yes.

This upends all Christian teachings.

This doesn't follow.

Once you've admitted that the holy texts are heavily biased and unreliable, does that not call the faith into question at all?

It does to an extent, sure (any Christian who sees how the Biblical sausage is made without their faith being shaken at least a little is either a saint or a liar), but "upends all Christian teachings" is a pretty big conclusion to jump to. Plus, I'm sure you're aware that the question of whether the Bible is the only epistemic authority on which Christianity rests (as opposed to the Bible plus other religious texts, writings of Christian philosophers (although you and I are united in finding many of these unconvincing), personal experiences of mystics, examples of saintly living, the vaguely-defined phenomenon known as "the life of the Church", etc. etc.) isn't one on which consensus exists within Christianity. Personally, I come down very firmly on the side of the Bible being one part of a broader structure of epistemic authority, as does every Christian denomination I've ever been a member of.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It is very clear in the Bible that sex is only allowable within marriage.

Is it, though? I believe this myself, but I don't know that I'd say it's "very clear" from the Biblical text.

IIRC when Paul talks about sexual immorality it was understood that he was including sex outside of marriage.

Yes, but the sexual ethics taught by Jesus and Paul are explicitly stated, by Jesus Himself, to be more stringent than those in the Sinaitic covenant, and in ways that directly involve the understanding of what constitutes fornication or adultery.

I'm not saying this to sh**t on the Hebrew Bible or the Law; I've made my dislike for theologies that bracket out that stage of salvation history very clear on this board in the past. But your defenses of it to afleitch so far in this thread have struck me as handwaving.

If anything, what you said strengthens my point.  It doesn't say "thou shall not have sex outside of marriage," but it uses different words to convey the same idea (1 Corinthians 7:2 is almost certainly saying this).

Okay, but the moral prescriptions of I Corinthians 7 (or Matthew 19 or whatever) aren't always going to be identical to those of every other part of the Bible--not because morality is relative (it's not), but because God sometimes undertakes different relationships with humanity on different terms.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It is very clear in the Bible that sex is only allowable within marriage.

Is it, though? I believe this myself, but I don't know that I'd say it's "very clear" from the Biblical text.

IIRC when Paul talks about sexual immorality it was understood that he was including sex outside of marriage.

Yes, but the sexual ethics taught by Jesus and Paul are explicitly stated, by Jesus Himself, to be more stringent than those in the Sinaitic covenant, and in ways that directly involve the understanding of what constitutes fornication or adultery.

I'm not saying this to sh**t on the Hebrew Bible or the Law; I've made my dislike for theologies that bracket out that stage of salvation history very clear on this board in the past. But your defenses of it to afleitch so far in this thread have struck me as handwaving.

If anything, what you said strengthens my point.  It doesn't say "thou shall not have sex outside of marriage," but it uses different words to convey the same idea (1 Corinthians 7:2 is almost certainly saying this).

Okay, but the moral prescriptions of I Corinthians 7 (or Matthew 19 or whatever) aren't always going to be identical to those of every other part of the Bible--not because morality is relative (it's not), but because God sometimes undertakes different relationships with humanity on different terms.

Could you expand on how you see God's absolute morality relate to contingent moral prescriptions?

We know from Matthew 19:8 that (in the orthodox Christian understanding of salvation history that's taught in the Gospels; Jewish theology obviously sees things differently) some of the moral prescriptions in the Pentateuch were given with a view to indulging human imperfection. I don't see any reason to assume that the difference between Jewish and Catholic theology on divorce is the only such example there is.

Of course, the heuristic then needs to be what moral imperfections or character flaws might be being indulged--and whether in some cases we might think that a prescription is more contingent than it is just because we'd rather not follow it if we don't have to. (In grad school I heard several beyond-asinine arguments that every Biblical passage that attempts to morally regulate sexual behavior--for some reason it was always sexual morality people would jump to with this, rather than, say, just war, or teachings on poverty and wealth--falls into this category; I don't agree with that claim at all.)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It is very clear in the Bible that sex is only allowable within marriage.

Is it, though? I believe this myself, but I don't know that I'd say it's "very clear" from the Biblical text.

IIRC when Paul talks about sexual immorality it was understood that he was including sex outside of marriage.

Yes, but the sexual ethics taught by Jesus and Paul are explicitly stated, by Jesus Himself, to be more stringent than those in the Sinaitic covenant, and in ways that directly involve the understanding of what constitutes fornication or adultery.

I'm not saying this to sh**t on the Hebrew Bible or the Law; I've made my dislike for theologies that bracket out that stage of salvation history very clear on this board in the past. But your defenses of it to afleitch so far in this thread have struck me as handwaving.

If anything, what you said strengthens my point.  It doesn't say "thou shall not have sex outside of marriage," but it uses different words to convey the same idea (1 Corinthians 7:2 is almost certainly saying this).

Okay, but the moral prescriptions of I Corinthians 7 (or Matthew 19 or whatever) aren't always going to be identical to those of every other part of the Bible--not because morality is relative (it's not), but because God sometimes undertakes different relationships with humanity on different terms.

Could you expand on how you see God's absolute morality relate to contingent moral prescriptions?

We know from Matthew 19:8 that (in the orthodox Christian understanding of salvation history that's taught in the Gospels; Jewish theology obviously sees things differently) some of the moral prescriptions in the Pentateuch were given with a view to indulging human imperfection. I don't see any reason to assume that the difference between Jewish and Catholic theology on divorce is the only such example there is.

Isn't the orthodox Christian interpretation not that the moral prescriptions in the Pentateuch which indulged human imperfection were okay, therefore we can indulge ourselves in certain moral areas now, but that they were a flaw which necessitated a new covenant under Jesus? Feel free to correct me here.

I'm not claiming we "can indulge ourselves in certain moral areas now"; I specifically dismissed that interpretation as unorthodox and (worse) self-serving in the second paragraph there.

I have no idea how anyone today would not be required to follow 1 Corinthians 7.

I have no idea either. But the passages with which afleitch was taking issue were not from I Corinthians.

Again, I'm not saying this to sh**t on the Law or the Pentateuch, only to refute defenses of them that amount to handwaving some of their alarming features.