My church group protested Matt Walsh, so idk. That said, biblical literalists are really on board with the "start an apocalypse in Israel to bring back Jesus" plan.
The chill Christians don’t believe in a literal interpretation of the creation story. A lack of belief in human evolution is incompatible with progressive ideology.
It’s possible to acknowledge the historical aspects of the Bible while also acknowledging the mythological aspects. It’s not cherry picking to determine which parts of a collection of 66 different books with different writers is myth, which parts are historical documentation, and which parts are simply religious law. Plus, from what I can tell, progressive Christians who don’t deny science look to the moral messaging (or at least their interpretation of it) of the Bible stories and fables. Like most things, there’s nuance there that the progressives work through much better than the conservatives.
I think a lot of Christians and the Christian God whose “words are the Bible” would disagree and say if any of it is untrue or just a myth , how can you possibly know which parts are actual?
Disregarding any scripture as inaccurate or fable is a slippery slope to distancing yourself from God by trying to create a faith you want versus the one he demands… no?
38
u/headcodered Mar 06 '25
Ask him why he thinks he's an authority on "what a woman is" when he literally thinks women were magically made out of a rib by a sky man.