Talk:Progressive Christianity

So what?
This is somewhat not quite passing the "so what?" test for me - David Gerard (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not all Christians are fundie loons. In other news, drinking lots of beer makes you drunk. Spud (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that the article could be better if it mentioned some of the bigger theological differences that the clergy willingly accept and the more liberal theology some of them have developed. I think it is significant that in their seminaries they teach about and accept the reality of pseudo-epigripha, the documentary hypothesis, acknowledge early Christians did not believe Jesus was god, and admit the trinity was a late invention that is only weakly supported in the Bible. The rejection and opposition to not only creationism but rapture theology is noteworthy. They shouldn't be described as a denomination but a branch of Christianity-primarily Mainline protestants.
 * More ultra-liberal Christian forms might be particularly worth noting-like a reference to John Shelby Spong and his rejection of theism as a way to know god. Theothanatology in general might be worth including. Arachne1988 (talk) 03:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yet even in generally very liberal Christian traditions you can get "too liberal", though the particular case may have had more to do with the fact that the (cabinet) minister in charge of ecclesiastical affairs at the time was not particularly liberal... (thus providing excellent evidence for an opinion shared by priests of the church in question that the "holy men" (and women) need to be kept away from this, the top administrative position of the church. Another adage being that the best Ministers of Ecclesiastical Affairs are those whose names you can't remember and that "controversial" is never a good moniker to receive when heading this particular cabinet portfolio). ScepticWombat (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay maybe if is best to describe the ultra liberal sorts in the article, but admit that they are kind of like hipsters. They are far from popular and hold certain views before they are a trend.Arachne1988 (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I just want to give a thumbs up for the general sentiment and effort behind this article, in case it seemed as if I was dismissing the relevance of it. My comment above was more meant as a sort of "interesting aside" (I'm prone to those, sorry), rather than as criticism of the article's content. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A few references might make this look a bit less like the opinion of some random liberal Christian.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 14:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe some of the material from the Wikipedia article on this topic, incl. references, could be useful here. --Yisfidri (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The end point
Presumably "Progressive Christians" will accept that the Earth is not 6,000 years old. That the story is Genesis is a myth. That the gospels were not written by the apostles after whom they were named but were inventions of later authors. They will accept that there are scientific explanations for all the things which were previously ascribed to gods. They will reject the story of Adam, Eve and the serpent and the consequent idea of original sin - the thing which necessitated ate death of Jesus.

One would imagine that they will only accept explanations for which there is empirical evidence.

At what point will they become indistinguishable from atheists?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 15:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If you are really curious, look into people like Francis Collins. It's more a case of rejecting the bits of Christianity for which there is definite contrary evidence but still accepting the bits which are not definitely untrue (including bits that are unfalsifiable).--SpecialFFrog (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It would perhaps be even more more interesting to hear the opinions of any progressive christians who are contributors to this site.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 15:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My very superficial examination of this suggests to me that (1) you are giving too much credence to the god of the gaps and that (2) the RW article on Francis Collins is very poor.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 16:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree on the second point but not on the first. I'm an atheist. I don't give credence to the god-of-the-anything.
 * Also, while I agree that this article is too nice to Pope Francis, some of that detail might more properly belong on his page.
 * Finally, I'm not sure the po-mo label applies to Progressive Christianity. The practice of Christianity has constantly revised in reaction to changes in society. Fundamentalist Christianity a modern creation as well.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Or perhaps no. I'm not really sure of the point(s) you are making. But I do not doubt they are profound.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)