Randal, though I no longer call myself a Christian, I find your content quite thought provoking. You’ve helped me understand a far more open and honest take on my previous fundamental and presuppositionalist faith. I’ve grown a lot in 2024, and you’ve provided a portion of that. Thank you good sir. Keen the dialogue going.
I'm about as liberal as a Christian can get. So is my definition of a Christian, which allows me to squeeze in. A Christian is one who loves God as father, loves neighbor as oneself, and loves Jesus as God's ultimate revelation. Period. Everything else is over-thinking or over-belief. It's this liberal Christianity that underlies the Christmas spirit as reflected in our favorite holiday movies, as Randal explains in this video. Note that one of the most moving portrayals of conversion, that of Scrooge in Xmas Carol, is utterly devoid of doctrine. To quote the liberal Christian Tiny Tim, may God bless us every one.
That's not a correct definition. Christians cannot define what it is it for the other billions who think differently. We get to hear it from all. I will tell you what a Christian is. Someone who believes in God and accepts Jesus came to save them from the sins they were born with. That's it. Read Paul. Christians don't follow teachings from Jesus. They follow the Church. Why else would we imagine there are many thousands of denominations that don't think, look or act alike? Values are optional. Hatred is always welcome. Christianity is Idol worship at minimum, then the individual practitioner just makes it become them. You and they all create in in your own image. It is less of a value system meant to manage a group and more of a behavioral excuse in the world at large today.
Would you be able to replace Jesus with Santa Claus and mean anything to you? Because historical Jesus is not the Christ of faith. Christ is a myth, like Santa Claus.
And the Grinch’s small heart grew three sizes that day! (It had started out being two sizes too small.) I’m not a Christian, but I do read How the Grinch Stole Christmas to my kids every Christmas morning, and I was delighted to hear you cite it as representative of the joy, the sharing, the hope, and the kindness of the liberal strand of Christian religiosity. Strip away the dogmas and doctrines, the heaven and hell, the miracles and the parables and the epistles and the gospels, and perhaps deep down we will find out that this is what Christmas is all about! Merry Christmas to you all, and a safe and Happy New Year!
A liberal by definition is "a willingness to accept behavior or opinions different from our own." If love "does not seek its own interest". Then by all accounts, love is a liberal construct.
Jesus was a liberal. When political terms are used to describe a true guru, you'll find the idol worshipers and those who stand against them. Jesus was a Buddha, not what he was turned into.
Here's a simple challenge to those using progressive and liberal framing that invalidates the use of that framing. Demonstrate the wide differences between Latin Amerian orthodox Christian countries and any other orthodox Christian country in the world. By definition Latin American countries are western, Christian countries. In other words, orthodox buys no guarantee socially.
So Randal, would you say you are an "orthodox Christian"? Also, you've probably read about some early Christianities (c.f. Ehrman). It was never "a single thing" and it only became somewhat coagulated after two centuries of heresy hunting and doctrine agreement (but also with a lot of disagreement). So to present it as somehow having "lost" its coherence is historically and theologically incorrect. Imagine all the unorthodox Christians (classic example being the Montanists) that you've casually wiped out of the history of the church.
The Bible cannot justify itself. Citing it means you have to prove God exists first. Then if you would tell me why you follow a religion founded in fear and functions as idol worship.
You had a better argument recently: there is no there there. You sort of allude to that with the Martin Luther segment. Define Evil Evangelicals (EE) to mean all the Christian denominations currently calling themselves orthodox and labeling people such as our self liberal. Now take the set of traditions for each EE denomination and do a Ven diagram of intersection. Further, as you keep pointing out, if you were to add your own traditions to this Ven diagram then you would intersect as many traditions as other EE denominations. This is the inherent flaw with the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. If one examines the people claiming to be the True Scotsman versus those the group of false Scotsman then you find there are false Scotsman who are more Scotsman than the True Scotsman.
I don't want to tell someone what they should identify as, but tbh I'm a little skeptical that you might be able to say you're not liberal on account of rejecting foundationalism. But even if we go that route, haven't you described yourself as a progressive? I suppose that could mean different things to people and I haven't read your works you cited here yet so I won't be too hasty just surprised to hear you say this is all.
To identify to someone else as liberal or progressive one first needs to come to a mutual understanding of the definitions of those terms. It's not made any easier by the fact they can mean different things depending on the context -- i.e. political vs religious.
Okay, sadly I have to take you to task on this one. This argument is on par with apologists using the academic version of the word atheist meaning a positive claim god doesn't exist. No atheist accepts this definition of atheist. Academics and apologists using that positive claim definition are just wanting to argue a strawman of their choosing. An atheist just lacks belief in any god. Likewise liberal conventionally just means someone who breaks with existing traditions. People who break with traditions and replace them with what they think are better traditions are progressives. It's weak tea mon to appeal to academic vernacular. Academics really need to quit appealing to academic culture when communicating in the commons and instead use common usage. I'd bet $100 that the people accusing you of being a liberal don't know your definition and are using the common one.
Atheists don't accept the ACTUAL definition because that allows them skate by on the intellectual laziness of avoiding the burden of proof. New Atheism has bred a whole generation of people who think "nuh uh" comprises a case-closed argument. The 4 Horsemen were smart enough to know a positive atheism claim can be reduced to absurdity with minimal apologetic scrutiny; so they sold their sycophants the "rejection of a claim" bill of goods to prop themselves up. This line of coping is no longer convincing anyone, I'm afraid.
The academics are correct, but practically speaking, there is little difference between those who say they lack a belief in a god or gods and those who say a god or gods do not exist.
“No atheist accepts that definition of atheism.” How about every academic philosopher of religion, particularly top proponents of atheism such as Felipe Leon? I suggest you have a read of Graham Oppy’s Atheism: A Short Introduction.
@calebp6114 "New Atheism" (Internet atheism) popularized this intellectually dishonest dodge & hustle and the sycophants ran with it. I commented about this earlier as well but for some reason it's been removed...
jesus is not the messiah jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies the bible says the messiah will gather the exiles in deuteronomy 30:3 isaiah 11:11-12 jeremiah 30:3, 32:37 ezekiel 11:17, 36:24 the bible says the messiah will rebuild the temple in isaiah 2:2-3, 56:6-7, 60:7, 66:20 ezekiel 37:26-27 malachi 3:4 zechariah 14:20-21 the bible says when the messiah comes there will be world peace and a complete end to war in micah 4:1-4 hoseah 2:20 isaiah 2:1-4, 60:18 the bible says the messiah will bring universal knowledge of god in zechariah: 3:98:23, 14:9, 16 isaiah 45:23, 66:23; jeremiah 31:33 ezekiel 38:23; psalm 86:9 zephaniah 3:9. jesus didn't do any of these things, so jesus can't be the messiah.
Of Christianity is not true, then Christian faith is in vain...every single person who is a Christian clergymen might as well quite and get a real job....! But Jesus is Christ ( Messiah) risen from the dead and alive forevermore ...The verses you pulled out of context do not disprove this..
@anthonybarber3872 jesus rising from the dead would not prove that jesus is the messiah and it would not prove that christianity is true because deuteronomy 13 says that false prophets can perform miracles.
Randal, though I no longer call myself a Christian, I find your content quite thought provoking. You’ve helped me understand a far more open and honest take on my previous fundamental and presuppositionalist faith. I’ve grown a lot in 2024, and you’ve provided a portion of that.
Thank you good sir. Keen the dialogue going.
Merry Christmas Randal
Thoughtful post!
Thanks for all your posts. Please keep them coming in 2025
Thank you for this wonderfully thought-provoking video, Randall, and a very Merry Christmas to you too!
Peace... 🙏
I'm about as liberal as a Christian can get. So is my definition of a Christian, which allows me to squeeze in. A Christian is one who loves God as father, loves neighbor as oneself, and loves Jesus as God's ultimate revelation. Period. Everything else is over-thinking or over-belief. It's this liberal Christianity that underlies the Christmas spirit as reflected in our favorite holiday movies, as Randal explains in this video. Note that one of the most moving portrayals of conversion, that of Scrooge in Xmas Carol, is utterly devoid of doctrine. To quote the liberal Christian Tiny Tim, may God bless us every one.
If Jesus wasn't a physical being in history, would that challenge your beliefs?
That's not a correct definition. Christians cannot define what it is it for the other billions who think differently. We get to hear it from all. I will tell you what a Christian is.
Someone who believes in God and accepts Jesus came to save them from the sins they were born with. That's it. Read Paul. Christians don't follow teachings from Jesus. They follow the Church.
Why else would we imagine there are many thousands of denominations that don't think, look or act alike? Values are optional. Hatred is always welcome. Christianity is Idol worship at minimum, then the individual practitioner just makes it become them. You and they all create in in your own image. It is less of a value system meant to manage a group and more of a behavioral excuse in the world at large today.
That’s the point I’ve reached as well, or pretty close. Coming from fundamentalism a short 10 years ago. I just started thinking for myself.
Would you be able to replace Jesus with Santa Claus and mean anything to you? Because historical Jesus is not the Christ of faith. Christ is a myth, like Santa Claus.
@ DONT EVER SAY THAT. When I was little, Santa brought me a radio flyer red wagon and a three pack of tube socks. Jesus never did anything.
And the Grinch’s small heart grew three sizes that day!
(It had started out being two sizes too small.)
I’m not a Christian, but I do read How the Grinch Stole Christmas to my kids every Christmas morning, and I was delighted to hear you cite it as representative of the joy, the sharing, the hope, and the kindness of the liberal strand of Christian religiosity. Strip away the dogmas and doctrines, the heaven and hell, the miracles and the parables and the epistles and the gospels, and perhaps deep down we will find out that this is what Christmas is all about!
Merry Christmas to you all, and a safe and Happy New Year!
I just joined Blue Sky and I hope this new year you can spread your message of love to Blue Sky neighbors. :)
What a delightful video. Helps me understand your perspective, although I’ll personally keep valuing justification.
A liberal by definition is "a willingness to accept behavior or opinions different from our own." If love "does not seek its own interest". Then by all accounts, love is a liberal construct.
Jesus was a liberal. When political terms are used to describe a true guru, you'll find the idol worshipers and those who stand against them. Jesus was a Buddha, not what he was turned into.
Merry Christmas!
Was it fracturing religious unity or the appearance of religious unity?
There was never religious unity
Here's a simple challenge to those using progressive and liberal framing that invalidates the use of that framing.
Demonstrate the wide differences between Latin Amerian orthodox Christian countries and any other orthodox Christian country in the world. By definition Latin American countries are western, Christian countries.
In other words, orthodox buys no guarantee socially.
I don’t know why Christians wouldn’t embrace the term. Jesus was a liberal.
So Randal, would you say you are an "orthodox Christian"?
Also, you've probably read about some early Christianities (c.f. Ehrman). It was never "a single thing" and it only became somewhat coagulated after two centuries of heresy hunting and doctrine agreement (but also with a lot of disagreement). So to present it as somehow having "lost" its coherence is historically and theologically incorrect. Imagine all the unorthodox Christians (classic example being the Montanists) that you've casually wiped out of the history of the church.
In Acts, the unifying teaching is clear...we are justified by Grace through faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ alone.
Please quote a passage from Acts that directly states this.
The Bible cannot justify itself. Citing it means you have to prove God exists first. Then if you would tell me why you follow a religion founded in fear and functions as idol worship.
You had a better argument recently: there is no there there. You sort of allude to that with the Martin Luther segment. Define Evil Evangelicals (EE) to mean all the Christian denominations currently calling themselves orthodox and labeling people such as our self liberal. Now take the set of traditions for each EE denomination and do a Ven diagram of intersection. Further, as you keep pointing out, if you were to add your own traditions to this Ven diagram then you would intersect as many traditions as other EE denominations. This is the inherent flaw with the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. If one examines the people claiming to be the True Scotsman versus those the group of false Scotsman then you find there are false Scotsman who are more Scotsman than the True Scotsman.
I don't want to tell someone what they should identify as, but tbh I'm a little skeptical that you might be able to say you're not liberal on account of rejecting foundationalism. But even if we go that route, haven't you described yourself as a progressive? I suppose that could mean different things to people and I haven't read your works you cited here yet so I won't be too hasty just surprised to hear you say this is all.
To identify to someone else as liberal or progressive one first needs to come to a mutual understanding of the definitions of those terms. It's not made any easier by the fact they can mean different things depending on the context -- i.e. political vs religious.
Okay, sadly I have to take you to task on this one. This argument is on par with apologists using the academic version of the word atheist meaning a positive claim god doesn't exist. No atheist accepts this definition of atheist. Academics and apologists using that positive claim definition are just wanting to argue a strawman of their choosing. An atheist just lacks belief in any god. Likewise liberal conventionally just means someone who breaks with existing traditions. People who break with traditions and replace them with what they think are better traditions are progressives. It's weak tea mon to appeal to academic vernacular. Academics really need to quit appealing to academic culture when communicating in the commons and instead use common usage. I'd bet $100 that the people accusing you of being a liberal don't know your definition and are using the common one.
Atheists don't accept the ACTUAL definition because that allows them skate by on the intellectual laziness of avoiding the burden of proof. New Atheism has bred a whole generation of people who think "nuh uh" comprises a case-closed argument.
The 4 Horsemen were smart enough to know a positive atheism claim can be reduced to absurdity with minimal apologetic scrutiny; so they sold their sycophants the "rejection of a claim" bill of goods to prop themselves up. This line of coping is no longer convincing anyone, I'm afraid.
The academics are correct, but practically speaking, there is little difference between those who say they lack a belief in a god or gods and those who say a god or gods do not exist.
“No atheist accepts that definition of atheism.” How about every academic philosopher of religion, particularly top proponents of atheism such as Felipe Leon? I suggest you have a read of Graham Oppy’s Atheism: A Short Introduction.
@calebp6114 "New Atheism" (Internet atheism) popularized this intellectually dishonest dodge & hustle and the sycophants ran with it. I commented about this earlier as well but for some reason it's been removed...
jesus is not the messiah jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies the bible says the messiah will gather the exiles in deuteronomy 30:3 isaiah 11:11-12 jeremiah 30:3, 32:37 ezekiel 11:17, 36:24 the bible says the messiah will rebuild the temple in isaiah 2:2-3, 56:6-7, 60:7, 66:20 ezekiel 37:26-27 malachi 3:4 zechariah 14:20-21 the bible says when the messiah comes there will be world peace and a complete end to war in micah 4:1-4 hoseah 2:20 isaiah 2:1-4, 60:18 the bible says the messiah will bring universal knowledge of god in zechariah: 3:9 8:23, 14:9, 16 isaiah 45:23, 66:23; jeremiah 31:33 ezekiel 38:23; psalm 86:9 zephaniah 3:9. jesus didn't do any of these things, so jesus can't be the messiah.
Did you want to write anything about this video, or just copy in some stuff about a different topic?
@weirdwilliam8500 It isn't a different topic. This video is about christianity, and I am saying christianity isn't true.
Of Christianity is not true, then Christian faith is in vain...every single person who is a Christian clergymen might as well quite and get a real job....!
But Jesus is Christ ( Messiah) risen from the dead and alive forevermore ...The verses you pulled out of context do not disprove this..
@anthonybarber3872 jesus rising from the dead would not prove that jesus is the messiah and it would not prove that christianity is true because deuteronomy 13 says that false prophets can perform miracles.
@@Pomni740 Still not useful in this context, and I'm an atheist.