Indeed it is.

http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture-society/who-needs-god-when-we-ve-got-mammon-5634/

“In a paper posted recently on the online journal Evolutionary Psychology, independent researcher Gregory S. Paul reports a strong correlation within First World democracies between socioeconomic well-being and secularity. In short, prosperity is highest in societies where religion is practiced least.

Using existing data, Paul combined 25 indicators of societal and economic stability — things like crime, suicide, drug use, incarceration, unemployment, income, abortion and public corruption — to score each country using what he calls the “successful societies scale.” He also scored countries on their degree of religiosity, as determined by such measures as church attendance, belief in a creator deity and acceptance of Bible literalism.

Comparing the two scores, he found, with little exception, that the least religious countries enjoyed the most prosperity. Of particular note, the U.S. holds the distinction of most religious and least prosperous among the 17 countries included in the study, ranking last in 14 of the 25 socioeconomic measures.”

I have pretty much abandoned the evangelical faith and have instead moved on to a faith whose main definition is “I don’t know anything for sure but I still love Jesus.” So my wife and I have started going to the Episcopal church where we know we won’t be preached at by dogmatic assholes filled with truthiness (like zdenny). I can be an episcopalian and not be bothered by Hell or the conviction that my gay friends need to commit to celibacy or get re-programmed (which is really creepy when you think about it). Now you ask the question, why retain a “liberal” faith at all? I have several reasons. One is that I love Jesus. Two is that I really would like to believe in an afterlife or “heaven” (I just don’t like the thought that this life is all there is, it’s too damn short and filled with pain). Three is that believing in God and Jesus gives me sense of purpose and control that I don’t think I would feel as an atheist. Lastly, although I don’t think this characterizes you and your attitude toward your believing readers. I don’t like “atheism” because I think it’s kind of dogmatic and too assured of itself. Why abandon religious dogma for irreligious dogma? I just don’t like dogma. What I do like is epistemological humility and a healthy emphasis on “I just don’t know for sure”.

But, in my own denomination, I probably would be considered as more conservative. It depends on someone’s whole frame of reference.

The issue for me is not about being liberal, or conservative. It’s more what it means to follow Jesus.

Truth is very important to many Christians in the mainline, but I think it’s also central to discern what are the essentials of Christian faith, and what are things that people can agree to disagree while still affirming the truth of the gospel together.

It seems to me that we also better throw a healthy dose of humility into the mix, since even Scripture says that, “We see through a glass darkly…”

Also, it’s entirely possible to be quite progressive politically, and very orthodox, and evangelical theologically, and the converse is also true.

I’m perpetually amazed by people who make blatantly counterfactual statements without the least bit of shame or hesitation. Is it possible you actually believe this is true? I think that would be even more depressing than finding out you were a shameless liar.

Reality is pretty cool. Try it some time.

“We are no longer godless barbarians killing and destroying each other; rather, there is an attempt to act according to reason.”

A CHRISTIAN says that to an ATHEIST?!?! What balls! Are you claiming that the 2000 years since Jesus’ birth HAVEN’T been filled with cruelty and bloodshed in his name? I suppose you’ll tell me next that the people doing that aren’t Real Christians (TM)?

You are a horrible, ignorant person. Claiming to “love” people and then being supremely offensive to them just makes you a hypocrit too.

I think of Liberal Christianity as the most individualized form of the religion. Friedrich Schleiermacher, the theologian who sort of kicked things off, placed a great deal of importance on one’s own inner religious feeling. In the process, he basically discarded massive amounts of Christian doctrine. I don’t think he ever really found a use for the trinity, the incarnation or the cross. Some of his followers discarded them entirely.

I think that “inner religious feeling” is the crucial part. Being a Liberal Christian usually means going with whatever moves you. That means that ever Liberal Christian is a bit different. Some like certain kinds of Christian philosophy, some people get all melty over the word “love,”some like the feeling of being connected to 2000 years of tradition, and others just like the singing and ritual Liberal denominations like the UU stress openness, diversity and a willingness to let their members be whatever they want to be.

Of course, those of us without any inner religious feelings are kind of mystified by it. I was a Liberal Christian for a few years, of the hyper-intellectualized John Shelby Spong variety. But I eventually realized that all that endless speculation about the nature of God was just that: endless. I just didn’t seem to find the whole thing as elevating as some others did.

What’s so bad about Sweden?

Morris Albert: Godless

Boston: Liberal

Gnarls Barkley: Evangelical

Get it?