verse. Sects with in denominations vary a lot. Literalist, all seem to have a big problem with loop holes. Take abortion, very few scriptures to justify current Christian opposition. First they have to base it on when human life begins and I can find dozen of loop holes to the view that life begins at conception.

When you see a Christian, or anyone else for that matter, calling other Christians "fake", then narrow mindedness could be the culprit. It's not surprising the same people would have such a narrow view on other subjects like abortion.

For example, the story of Jesus being born, living as a man, dying, and then being resurrected and ascending into heavern, is part of the creeds recited by most Christians. "Credo," the creed says - "I believe."

So, I think there is a necessary level of literalism that is essential for belief. On the other hand, most Christians probably do not believe that a literal "Great Fish" swallowed Jonah and then later vomited him up on the shore. How literal believers take various passages varies widely, but most will tell you what they believe to be literally true from the scriptures. Most, but not all.

We have one in this group who steadfastly refuses to say what he believes literally and what he believes to be only metaphor. After multiple requests, silence is the only response.

As such it's entirely possible someone who has no real belief in deities could still be a Christian, although they would certainly be an outlier. The point is it's pretty hard to claim anyone isn't a "real" Christian. Certainly everyone is allowed to pick and choose what to follow.

I don't really care about the details of their beliefs. If people say they are Christians, so be it.

That generic label, however, is useless in predicting behavior, so I find it a weak label. Moreover, since very many "Christians" ignore the actual teachings recorded as being from Christ, it is often a hypocritical label, as well.

Given the variations in doctrine and behavior of various groups of Christians, the label is all but meaningless, really. Observation of individual Christians is required to know how to predict what each will do in specific circumstances.

Particularly when the definition allows for many different possibilities and the number of different denominations speaks for itself.

Most people are happy to outline their religious beliefs. Some, however, just re-supply the label and go no further. Which, of course, leaves the question open. In some cases, perhaps, they do not really know what it is they believe.

I asked one person, years ago, and she recited the Apostle's Creed to me. I thanked her for her summary of her beliefs.

And that is why there is no response.

The respondent is perfectly free to answer in any way that suits. It is, instead, an open-ended question that leaves the answer up to the respondent.

As I said in another post, I once asked a woman what she believed, as a Christian. She recited the Apostle's Creed to me as her answer, for which I thanked her. It was a reasonable and sufficient answer.

However, Monsieur B., you have refused to answer even very well-defined, limited questions as to your beliefs. That is, of course, your perfect right, but it is also unsatisfying to the questioner.

You have said that you believe in a "Creator," but will not characterize that entity in any understandable way. I believe in my "Creators," my mother and father, who are still living at age 94. Once, they told me the circumstances of my creation, in terms of the date. They knew the date, because it was the only possible date. Before that date, my mother was at her parent's home, while my father was finishing his training as a B-17 pilot. When he knew his date of deployment, my mother took the train from her parents home to the base from which he would fly on the trip to Europe. He flew away the next day. I was born nine months later, while he was still in Italy. The date was October 29, 1944, without any question. So I know the date of my creation and spoke to my "Creators" this afternoon.

So, describe your "Creator" for me. Is it the Judeo-Christian deity? Or is it some more general supernatural force or entity?

My religious views can be summarized as:

1) All of life is a search for the Creator, and

2) Death represents the reunification with the Creator.

That is not an answer.

But no, I will not respond to a verse by verse inquisition.

Do you perhaps remember my many posts about the creation story in Genesis?

And all of life is searching for that fluctuation.

I myself like to keep up with developments in cosmology, so I might actually be a Christian.

and after attending seminary, I am fully aware that many church leaders, pastors don't think so either

Not many, but some.

When people educate themselves on the many contradictions in the bible, the inevitable outcome is many are going to stop believing in it. I'd be very surprised if there weren't a fair number of atheist pastors. It's still a job that puts food on the table even if you stop subscribing to what's being taught.

I had a good friend who was a Methodist minister. He and I often talked about religion, so he knew something about my knowledge of his denomination. Well, he was suddenly called away one week for a family emergency and called me. He asked if I would substitute for him that Sunday, two days later. He wasn't able to find a replacement. He told me the theme of the service, based on his liturgical calendar, and the order of the service, including the hymns, etc.

I said that I would be happy to fill in, and showed up early that Sunday. I was unknown to his congregation. I had asked him to arrange for someone else to lead the prayers during the service. So, I spend an hour in the pulpit following the liturgy and schedule he provided. I offered a concise homily on the subject of the reading, which was from 1 Corinthians. One of the elders or deacons or whatever offered the prayers for the service, and was very pleased to have that role.

After the service, I stood in the narthex of the church as the congregation departed, and received some compliments on my sermon. Nobody knew that an atheist had just led their Worship. why would they? My sermon began with "Paul wrote:"

Anyone can lead a church service who understands the liturgy and has some creative capabilities. I assume that an atheist could also act as a shepherd for the flock in other ways. It wouldn't be much of a stretch, but I didn't have to fill that role.

So, yes, there are atheists in the pulpit of far more churches than know that is the case, I'm certain. Nobody's the wiser, either.

From time to time members of the congregation would provide guest sermons. There was an atheist member who liked to do it. Everyone knew he was an atheist. Naturally less tolerant denominations would never allow this.

I didn't broadcast my atheism, although not doing the prayers might have been a clue. Nobody seemed to notice, though. I couldn't do it on a regular basis, though. That day, I was just playing a role.

I'm not sure the point of it, or perhaps what the takeaway is. They are still pushing the gospel, still telling people God is watching over them, still perpetuating the hegemony. Are they even worse than the true believers because at least the believers are acting towards what they believe?

Some start off doing that, then lose their belief. What are the qualified to do, after a seminary education? So they stay. I couldn't.

If being a priest is a job, then where does the magic begin, so to speak. Kinda undermines most any theistic arguments.

Doesn't bother me really, just an uncomfortable question for theists to dodge.

For some, it's far more than just a job. For others, it's just another day at work. How you tell the difference, I don't know. Then, there are some "pastors" who are mainly dedicated to extracting money from their flocks. For them, the church is an entrepreneurial opportunity.

...
http://clergyproject.org/about-the-clergy-project/

Thanks for reminding me of it!

...

is perfectly content to define atheism for atheists. But it's totally different because he's right. Just ask him.

No wonder he's never taken seriously.

We had another participant here who made the same claim and I’ve noticed other theists doing it. I suspect the motivation comes from a result of their cognitive dissonance.

Ah, there's the rub, over which wars have been fought, people slaughtered and lands taken.

There were four levels of interpretation of scripture (literal, moral, allegorical, anagogical). The literal interpretation was by no means the overall most important.

is actually a schism within Protestant sects over “inerrancy”. Most engage in hermeneutics, they have to as the plain text taken ‘literally’ is obvious gibberish, but the literal camp does so starting from the assumption that the text are the inerrant words of god.

I spoke with two people who studied theology. Studying theology means not only reading religious texts, but also analyzing them as a work of literature, analyzing them from various philosophical view-points, it means learning ancient history, ancient languages, archaeology, to understand what the author actually meant.

For example, when the Israelites spent 40 years in the desert or when Jesus spent 40 days in the desert, it doesn't literally mean 40. To the Israelites, "40" was a figure of speech for "a lot", just like we nowadays say "dozen".

I was told that those who were religious firebrands and started studying theology, they dropped out first. They just couldn't handle it to see their beliefs chipped away.

Some of them spend their time trying to figure out what the literal meaning is or in other words they are just translating the original authorship into modern language with the highest degree of fidelity possible. All languages have words and phrases with multiple meanings. Given almost all of the bible was passed on for decades or centuries by oral tradition from illiterate people and we don't know when or by whom or where the vast majority of it came from, the degree of fidelity is quite low.

From the literal translation, which we know is already riddled with all sorts of unavoidable errors during that process, other theologians will try and derive what the original authors actually meant. Each step of this process inherits the errors produced from the ones before. The example you gave for a figure of speech is another guess in the process. Was that figure of speech consistent from the time the oral tradition started to when it was written down? Maybe. It's also possible and quite likely the oral tradition started as something else more or less specific and evolved from there. Anyone who tries to tell you they know with any degree of certainty what the original authors actually meant can safely be assumed to be quite full of shit. When that person's objectivity is clouded by notions of hocus pocus, you no longer have to assume.

My dad started out as a pious Christian who bought into the mainstream Christian view of what the bible meant. By the time he finished his seminary education he had abandoned Christianity in favor of a universalist view. Some of the most respected Christian theologians are non-Christians, including agnostics.