I'm non-religious and I can't understand for the life of me why anyone on the liberal side of the spectrum would insist on calling themselves a christian. It's like drinking fanta and insisting it's orange juice.
I'm an athiest but I grew up in very religious households so I feel like I can try and explain this one People tend to look at religion for a guide. A way of thinking, a list of morals, a sense of community, etc. It's nice for those people to grow through those ideologies and to believe in a god and have something to work for in their lives. The reason why they may lean more to the liberal side of the spectrum may just be because believe in everything the church has to say, including the negative, may just be uncomfortable for them if they have family or people they care about who may be negatively affected by those beliefs. They could also just not know every detail that comes with being Christian and would instead of seeking salvation for themselves, use Christianity and the community behind it to create a better, more accepting world for their family, even if it may border on what is widely known in more dedicated Christian ideologies as heresy
The problem is, some people just want to be religious without feeling restricted i.e. they want to have their cake and eat it. I wouldn't take this as far as to say that any Christian who goes against their faith in minor ways isn't a real Christian (masturbation, looking at horoscope readings, greedily overeating) because there are very few people who cannot sin at all and some sins are clearly much worse than others (murder, theft, torture), but if someone's going to the point of declaring that a particular act isn't a sin at all then to me, that reflects a lack of integrity on their part. Those kinds of people need to properly reflect on why they feel bad about some aspect of their own faith, then abandon it if they can't resolve their cognitive dissonance. However, I accept that might not be possible in very conservative environments where people would be treated as outcasts or even persecuted if they did that.
@@j1233191 The biggest one for me, is all of the interpretations on gender identity and especially sexuality... they just feel so wrong. How can a loving God judge his creations for loving each other, regardless of their gender identity or orientation? I definitely don't believe God would ever condone any destructive or non-consensual, nor overtly lustful activity (the very reasons for the destruction of S&G). I just have a really hard time believing that they would condone consensual love. I want to ask the really conservative people how they think God would interpret an A-sexual, same sex couple? Because technically that wouldn't be violating any scripture I can think of, since there is zero sexual interaction going on there. So is that still going against God's rules?
@@thebarbaryghostsf You kind of seem like one of the stage 3 progressives that RZ talked about - I'll go through your points one by one. 1) There are different kinds of things that we English speakers call "love", love is a very vague term in our language. It could refer to familial love, friendly love, compassionate love (i.e. loving God and your neighbour as yourself) and erotic passion (performing sexual acts on someone or something.) Would it make sense to say that a rapist or a stalker fuelled with erotic passion "loves" their target? No, and it most certainly wouldn't make sense to say that a paedophile or a zoophile "loves" children or animals either. The typical prostitute user doesn't really "love" the one whose services they're using, and I think we can agree on all those things. Compassionate love is vastly more important than any other kind of love in God's eyes, Jesus did imply that people must prefer him to even their own parents or siblings. 2) The Sodomites weren't simply overly lustful - they did engage in a variety of sins as listed by a variety of Biblical writers, but it was mentioned by Jude in the New Testament that they "practiced unnatural vice". Considering that lying with a man as with a woman is spoken of as being an abomination in the Pentateuch and the early Christians were originally a Jewish sect, it's obvious what this is a reference to. Read Romans 1:26-27 for a more explicit description of homosexuality as being unnatural. 3) The idea of anything being OK if it's consensual is moral minimalism. It's a secular, intention-based utilitarian idea that goes directly against the deontological, act-based ethics of Christianity that seek to promote moral maximalism - Jesus himself said "Be perfect, just as your Heavenly Father is perfect". Using prostitutes and having casual sex can also be consensual, but I doubt you'd agree so passionately with those specific things, all because they're not emotionally charged issues or seen as things to be positively affirmed (except in the ultra-liberal Netherlands, but that's another story...) in the way that LGBT matters are. 4) If a same sex couple doesn't actually engage in sex, why are they even in a relationship to begin with? What's the point of forming that kind of bond with someone if you're not going to consummate it? "Asexual" and "same sex couple" are mutually contradictory, if they're not engaging in erotic activities including kissing, then they'd be better off staying single and relating to each other as just friends. St Paul himself said that husbands and wives must only abstain from sex for limited amounts of time in case the devil exploits their lack of self-control and he also said that if anyone burns with lust, they should marry. So it's clear from this that you can't cleanly separate sex from romantic relationships in general. In conclusion, I'd say that you need to consider whether you would give in and say that prostitution or casual sex or other kinds of sexual sins aren't sins or at least aren't that bad if the people engaging in them had become increasingly influential, prominent and accepted in the same way that people who have sex with the same sex did. If you say "no", then you're being a hypocrite and not giving all people who engage in consensual sex the same treatment. If you say "yes", then like RZ pointed out, you're just becoming increasingly distant from essential Christian doctrine like progressives in general.
I think I'm literally at 0. I'm catholic and I remember going to a Bible study and the reverend taught the class. He would talk about the deeper meaning of the Bible and the significance of repeating numbers. And I vaguely remember him saying that God creating the world in 6 days could be literal, or something different. I wish I had my notes still, but I remember him to encourage us to have an open mind about the meaning of every passage we read.
That’s surprising to hear because practically every Christian I’ve met, regardless of where they are on the scale, will strongly defend their point of view and always call the other objectively wrong I say this as a Christian, Christians never encourage you to have your own point of view.
@@torpid5092 I think it kinda helps that my mom grew up Lutheran before converting to Catholic and my grandfather a die hard Catholic didn't mind. So I kinda got a mix of Christian teaching. And the reverend of my church was just a very kind and respectful man. Again with the whole number thing as I did find some of my notes. He claimed we don't know how they measured time. So these people who lived to be 200 years old may have very well been that old or it just means something different. That's just one example. But yeah I do just kinda vibe in the middle
@@torpid5092idk what kinda Christians you met but my pastor is always asking for different opinions so that we can compare and search for the right answer. But my pastor came to the same thing, we were discussing the possible meanings because of the verse that says 1 day to God is like 1000 years to us and 1000 years is like 1 day. We know he made it for sure, it says it right there. But we also gotta consider the fact that God isn't bound by time and he made our time possible. Then again, I'm pretty young and the church is small so we get more time to really discuss. Might be different in other places.
"that God creating the world in 6 days could be literal, or something different." I take that view too, but I think evolution is a farce since the math is bad. I've not seen much of this view, but basically I have suspicions young earth is correct, but think the Bible doesn't demand it and "the science" can't study it.
Here me out, leave the Catholic Church, I know people who have went through it and it sound like almost a cult, try and build a relationship with Jesus, not just be part of a religion
I disagree with the notion that those on the liberal side are likely to become more liberal. Rather, I would tie it to how firmly one is getting their beliefs from scripture. For example, those who believe women should be leading churches because things "should be fair", or because "we're in the 21st century, come on already", might be likely to continue to slide. However, those who think that Paul's passages on women in ministry are largely localized for a specific context and that a more general Biblical context seems to elevate women into a position that allows for church leadership are still basing their views on scripture and are unlikely to stray away from scripture, because in their view they never had strayed in the first place. Great video as always though.
Yes. This is a good way of putting it. There are numerous other ideas that would fall into this video's first three levels of "progressive" Christianity that can also be very much based on a Biblical foundation. I think Redeemed Zoomer, being a bit more on the conservative side, may not be as aware of how that can be the case for some things.
generally agree. I grew up in a church with a woman pastor, and we have always been a literal Bible believing creationist church. we found positions in scripture to match these positions from the get-go, not as an excuse to make things more fair.
Women should not be pastors, priests, or leading churches. Timothy 2:12 is clear. Picking and choosing what we bring forward into modern times subverts that the Bible is the infallible Word of God. When we try manipulating it with mental gymnastics, we enter into disobedience and, yes, even heresy. The Bible claims to be infallible in 2 Peter 1:19, “We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable.” Peter continues with a description of how Scripture came to be: “No prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20-21). Also, we see infallibility implied in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, “All Scripture is God-breathed” and has the effect of producing servants of God who are “thoroughly equipped for every good work.” The fact that God “breathed” Scripture insures that the Bible is infallible, for God cannot breathe out error. The fact that the Bible equips God’s servants “thoroughly” for service shows that it guides us into truth, not error.
@psychiatricallyinclined I believe that you are mistaken, and reading things in the way that you do is potentially dangerous in terms of the actions it may lead one to take. First of all, what do you think about the Pharisees? They knew the law extremely well, and tended to take it quite literally. Yet, Jesus proved that they were interpreting things in the wrong way or with the wrong spirit on numerous occasions. Jesus Himself contradicted literal interpretations from the Torah, for example when He allowed his disciples to eat without first cleaning their hands. There is also reason to believe that Paul is speaking to a specific historical and geographical context when he says that women should not lead. Paul is quite egalitarian for his time, even saying that there is no difference between slave and master, male and female, etc. in the eyes of God, and telling husband and wife that they are each other's property sexually, as opposed to the man ruling the woman. It is true that it can be dangerous to interpret scripture to fit your own view, but the Bible's infallibility does not prohibit context. In fact, removing context simply to take it as it is creates many contradictions and leads to many misinterpretations. Some of the people whose opinions I trust the least are people who constantly insist that scripture is "clear" on issues that have caused great controversy within the church. There is usually a reason for that controversy. Sometimes conservatives have it right, and sometimes liberals do, and sometimes they are both wrong. But if it's not widely accepted, dismissing it as "clear," and claiming that the other side is just "leaning on their own understanding," suggests a lack of true consideration of the point. Which I suppose is understandable, since in your perspective, there is no reason to try to interpret anything. But I would suggest that you strongly reconsider that perspective. I wonder how many people have been needlessly driven away from the church because of it? I suspect quite a lot.
@Ex_christianAm As Karl Barth explained, since you are not saved, you just read the Human aspect of the Bible, but the Hole Spirit did not revealed the Divine aspect.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 there is no Devine aspect. That’s why you need faith, faith in make believe, because none of it is real. Otherwise, if it is real and there is a god, he’s a dick!
I'm not sure how well this spectrum works for certain branches of Christianity. For instance, in Catholicism you will come across some extremely theologically conservative people who in many ways are way more conservative than Protestant fundamentalists and yet they do not support YEC.
@@leusher9024 Young-earth Creation. Basically, the Earth is roughly six thousand years old, dinosaurs lived alongside humans, etc. It's based on the assumption that that the first eleven chapters of the Book of Genesis were intended as history rather than allegory or epic.
Most Church Fathers took Genesis as literally and were not YEC. There is alternative ideas as to how the days were 6 literal days and the eslapsing of time between Genesis events @@gunsgalore7571
I am a “progressive” Christian. It’s not because I feel any guilt over historical Christianity or a need to deconstruct inherited wisdom, or doubt the scripture. It’s because I find it impossible to recognize the message of the Gospel in most American Protestant Churches. It seems like a lot of evangelicals in particular are more interested in social cohesion and order than actually following Christ.
I agree. I'm a lapsed Catholic (who wants to get back in the church and practice more) and I classify myself as progressive, although I respect the traditions and conventions of the church.
This is difficult to agree with because of things like women’s suffrage and civil rights in the church. Things have changed and the majority of conservatives now agree that those things are good, but back years ago, many conservative Christians didn’t. Progressivism has moved its way through conservatives too
Being “conservative” is too dependent on the culture, modern Christianity is practiced much differently than that of the Christianity following Jesus. Maybe the book never changed but your interpretation of the book was given to you by a cultural context that is radically different to that of other eras of history. For instance the acceptance of racism in the mainstream American church to the strong convictions opposing racism in modern day America in the mainstream church. Bottom line being culturally conservative doesn’t mean you defend the bible more closely, just a particular cultural perspective and context of the bible. This is evidenced by proliferation of denominations all claiming to be “biblical”.
Well many "progressive" interpretations are not actually changes to the Bible but are in response to a more accurate reading of the Bible in historical context or in some cases correcting mistranslations. A lot of the most inflammatory words in the Bible: "fornication", "abomination", "sodomy" are mistranslations, that do not accurately reflect the original meaning of the text.
Nice video, but i think this scale only really works for Protestantism, since for Catholicism for example, evolutionism is very commonly accepted but denomination exclusivism is a dogma (extra ecclesiam nulla salus) which kind of breaks the scale.
@@Gaius453 I would disagree. Suppose you do agree with 95% of Catholic dogma but question or are unsure about the other 5%? What then would you refer to yourself as? Not Orthodox. Not Protestant. Something else? Idk. Those are my thoughts, would love to hear yours.
The problem when we group things in binary groupings is that we focus too much on the macro of things instead of the subsets. For example, someone may believe in many progressive ideologies but may have very strict anti-abortion views in all circumstances, and vice-versa.
Wow, you're trying to take like .001% of a group and say "they aren't all like that." What a completely useless way to look at the world. I'm sorry, if 12 people in a group of a million are anti-abortion, the group isn't anti-abortion and it's fair to say that the group is fine with abortion.
I think the problem is that all ideology is fundamentally anti Christian because they are not based on scripture and the presuppositions that they make in some cases reject the idea or neglect the existence of God such as liberalism, socialism and fascism all these ideologies reject God to varing extents and so are false at their foundation hence any ideals made through them although some may align with Christian ideals are false and corrupted.
4 หลายเดือนก่อน +51
Simply because humans tend to make everything way oversimplyfied in order to decide guickly. Thinking objectively is hard
I liked the line at the end "Where would Jesus be?" A good question that lots of Christians (including myself) need to ask more often. Edit: Hey mom! I'm famous!
How? He wanted to save everyone, treated everyone fair, and even spoke against that. Like in the parable with the Good Samaritan, or how God said to the Israelites in Leviticus they treat any foreign person well, regardless of ethnicity, because they were foreigners n Egypt. He makes a point so many times that everyone is equal because we all sin, he never mistreated someone because he was perfect. He loved all of everyone because he created them. If Jesus can't because though he was fully man, he was still fully God, and it is impossible for God to sin because it goes against his very being.
@@Mugiwara_Luffy_SamaAll people are sinners and fall short of God's standard. I think what you're trying to ask is if being transgender is a sin which yes it is because it distorts the creation of God, a man can not become a woman and a woman can not become a man, God created you unique and special and it should be cherished over a feeling. A few scriptural references are Genesis 1:27, Genesis 5:2, and Matthew 19:4. Another thing I'd add is God can not make errors and believing in trans ideology spits in God's face by telling Him that He made you wrong and He has fault which is untrue, as if He did have fault He could not be God. A few scriptural references Deuteronomy 32:4, Psalm 18:30, Matthew 5:48, Romans 12:2.
Great video, but I feel grouping these 'levels' on a 2D scale might be a little reductive? For example, bringing up 'scripture denial'...Surely Christians on both sides of this scale and across denominations are capable of using bad hermeneutics to affirm their beliefs. It isn't simply "denial" because they interpret scripture on one issue or another in a way that someone else perceives is incorrect.
I think that to make a video where he can explain this spectrum and make it digestible by a wide audience, one has to take some liberties in not being so wholly encompassing of all situations. Beyond that, I think what he was going for is that traits in each prior step are sort of prequisite to the next, as opposed to being solely exclusive to that point on the graph.
I am assuming if you get to the scripture denial part of the scale that he means you are someone who outright denies something specifically stated in the Bible, not interpreting it differently. That would be when it says do not commit adultery and a scripture denier would say that it’s fine.
I was on the progressive road for a few years until i realised that i had changed & twisted scripture so much that the God i was praying to was the completely wrong one. I decided that if i am going to be a Christian, I want to do it right, starting with accepting God, wholly and completely as He has revealed to us, and not just what i want. Same with the Bible Ive had an absolute blast since!!! The real true God of the Bible shows UP when you let Him!!!!!
So is your God the one who slaughtered the first born of Egypt or the one who ordered his people to enact laws that required women who were raped to be sold to their rapist? Oh! Maybe the version of God who sent literal bears to kill the children who joked about the prophet Elisha's bald head? That version is fun. Real comic book villain that one.
There's no place for Christianity, Islam, or other fairy tale religions in the 21st century, they hold back scientific and social progress and need to be called out for what they are - wishful thinking and delusions.
I vary from a 0.5 on liberal scale to a 0.5 on the conservative scale. I respect conservative beliefs, although I stop really agreeing at stage 3 conservatism because at that point it’s just denying science and more of a cult than an actual religion. For liberalism, I think stage 2 is the max I can tolerate. Anything beyond stage 3 is not true Christianity.
Amen! I haven't wore two different fabrics simultaneously in years! Plus, it saved me from a lot of guilt the other day when I was beating my slave, but I found out it's totally fine because he survived a few days. Leviticus and Exodus have opened my eyes.
This was really well explained! I think I sort of place as a 1.5 degree Conservative, though this was really good at explaining everything in a non-biased way
yea the little side-comment about “if you’re a non-believer and have negative opinions about christianity, then you’re a normal non-believer” was really shady. persecution complex much? or maybe it’s projection
Yeah, Atheism isn't destroying the church. We're doing a fine job of that on our own. Truthfully, if we were doing the will of Jesus and following Him, not just using Him for a mascot, there would be fewer Atheists in general
@@johntaylor6851 i agree %100 percent, so many are turned away from religion by the people supposed to get them into it. i always hear "i went to Catholic school and now i'm not a Christian" and it breaks my heart. (not ragging on Catholics, that's jus the first example i remembered.)
I think this is an oversimplification. After all, I think most people would agree that non-Nicene groups such as Oneness Pentecostals, LDS, and JWs certainly aren’t theologically liberal or progressive. Heretical in their rejection of the Trinity, to be sure, but on all the other matters, they fall into either the moderate or conservative camps. There’s also the issue of mainline vs evangelical churches. While mainline congregations are generally theologically liberal and evangelical churches are generally theologically conservative, there are evangelical theologians like Rob Bell whose understanding of salvation falls firmly into the universalist camp.
Why would Pentecostals be a non-Nicene group? I can't speak for all pentecostal churches, but most of us do belive in every point of in the Nicene creed
As an LDS person, I'm not quite sure what you mean when you mention us rejecting the Trinity. We believe in God, Jesus, and the Spirit as three separate beings. Is that uncommon in other faiths?
To be a progressive christian is to be the lukewarm church that Jesus warned about, to be an extreme conservative christian is to serve another master over Christ. All in all are all sinners and Christ died so that we may be set free, if anything were supposed to unite to save America not fall into the bickering that makes adults look immature compared to children. Also dang its been a minute since Ive seen this channel. Absolutely based and informative video
@@Uncle_Ruckus_ Not necessarily, Everyone thinks that they're interpretation is most in line with the will of God. And yet people disagree. Your following word for word might be someone else's cultural bias. I don't think that anyone is sinning merely by following their best understanding. But I do think that everyone is obligated to a certain amount of due diligence when it comes to being critical about their own beliefs and about being patient with those who disagree.
@@Grokford you know those red sentences? Those don't change no matter how many times it's been translated. The Bible changing it's meanings is a lie atheists and anti Christians say a lot. It's now being reinterpreted because we are living in the final days in revelation. Everywhere will be deception to lead you astray from God, even in the churches.
grew up between 3 and 4 conservative, and am an agnostic now. it was a long and tough journey but im at peace with it now. did any of you have similar or different journeys through the spectrum?
grew up at 3 conservative (young earth creationist, evolution-denier, etc.), now agnostic atheist. i don’t think i really entertained more progressive forms of christianity because, as i’m sure you know, conservative christianity teaches an “all or nothing” way of thinking about the world in general, but especially the faith and the bible. my journey out of christianity began with two simple questions: why do i believe the words in the bible? answer: well it’s the word of god. why do i believe it’s the word of god? because it says so..in the bible. when i realized that reasoning was patently circular, it made me a lot more skeptical of what i was being told.
Wonderfully said! I recently heard Paul VanderKlay refer to himself as a “Mere Christianity” kind of person (alluding to the book by CS Lewis). This is my view as well. I was chrismated into the Eastern Orthodox Church last year, following a series of clear-and at times miraculous-signs. My Lord wants me there, and at my specific place of worship. He has brought me such joy in these things. But I was already a Christian before that, and the Holy Spirit was a major, felt presence in my life as a Baptist. My parents are beautiful Christians, as are other loved ones in Protestant or Catholic denominations. There is a “line” somewhere, of course, but God sees our hearts and is always calling to each of us. In that process, we are all going to misinterpret or simply not hear about a lot of true things. We see through a glass darkly. God works all things to the good of those who love him and activates those who love Him wherever we are. One day, we will no longer look through a glass but directly in His beautiful face. There will be no need for denominations because we will live with the unveiled Truth. Until then, I think we should give each other grace. We can be wrong about a lot of things while loving and serving God. Part of living is his gentle correction, which sometimes comes through another human with a different perspective.
I would adhere to roughly the same view. Faith in the person of Jesus is central, which is not very propositional. The bible clearly makes propositional truth claims. However, even though Scripture is infallible, we are fallible. The best we can do is be faithful to Jesus in the beliefs we hold. I attend a church that I disagree with on many propositions, but I genuinely believe the people are trying to be faithful to Christ and God's word. Who am I to demand they shift from their faithfully held beliefs?
Well said!!! I am a Global Methodist with a strong respect for Orthodoxy (Wesleyan theology has some interesting crossovers with the East that are not normal for Western churches), and I fully expect to learn in the next life about areas where I'm wrong. I enjoy learning, so this isn't as much of a scary prospect for me as an interesting and exciting one. :-)
@@nerysghemor5781Hey! I'm eastern orthodox and I was considering to read something from Wesley, but I can't find out what's his "magnum opus". Is there any book from him that you would recommend as an introduction to understanding his theology? (I want to read directly from him, not some biography)
@@jonaszswietomierz8017 I would have to look into that to find the titles. What I would suggest as a keyword is what Methodists refer to as entire sanctification. It’s nearly identical to theosis.
I am proud to be stage 1 Progressive. The church has hurt people in the past and present, and it should stop. We are supposed to walk in love. At the same time, there needs to be a balance in following the Word. I do love the ending statement. We need to focus on what Christ is telling us
People who believed in Jesus. A religion used God to kill people to torture people to persecute people because they don't believe the same as them they ruled the Earth like they have the authority of God Jesus never told us to kill torture or persecute people. The people that did it didn't understood and didn't do what Jesus said “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matthew 5:43-44). Jesus is God so he is eternal so he never changed. So we don't have to reform or change Christianity but to return to Jesus. A hell lot of denominations do things different of the Bible others interpret the Bible in their own way. Some have the audacity to add teachings that is absolutely against what the Bible says and promote it and teach it to others and have the audacity to call themselves the only one true church I believe the true Church of Christ is thoses who Jesus himself know and approve of. Matthew 7:13-14 NKJV “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
Absolutely we need to focus on what Christ we can still hate a sin and not want people be killed because they do it. sexual love that is not between a woman and man is a sin and an abomination. But this don't mean we should hate them. Why whould people hate them but don't hate lying people drunkards cussing people or unbelievers for example. Jesus forgave an adulterous why should i condemn a gay then ? John 8 3Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, 4they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. 5Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” 6This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear. 7So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” 8And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?” 11She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.” 12Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.” but be sure that being gay is a sin Paul wrote about this 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Yes, that's about where I'm at. I'm an Episcopalian. I'm LGBT and a Democrat. I don't want the pride flag in church, and I want to talk about Jesus and the Gospel. I can watch MSNBC the other six mornings of the week.
I think it might be a mistake to mix a spectrum of opinions with a spectrum of tolerance. You can have a very narrow tolerance that doesn't copy the traditional views. But it's a complicated topic and for a short video, great job!
He thinks people on the right want Christianity to be exclusive. That’s absurd. I mean I don’t talk to people on the right more than my leftist friends. But I’m on the right and I know what Christianity is and what’s it’s not and it’s not exclusive.
Curious as to whether women in ministry is the best example for your degrees of conservatism. I know many churches that will hold to degree 2 and 3 but have no issue with women in ministry leadership or pastoral roles.
Agreed...I'm a 0.5 progressive (not going any further left than that) and I actually look forward to finding out in the next life where I am wrong. I realize I don't know or understand everything and I think being open to learning and correction is good. From Scripture it seems that when a person was open to learning and correction when they didn't have it all right, Jesus was very kind in how he educated them, so I think that would be a positive conversation, not a negative one. (Think of the Samaritan woman, who had many things wrong theologically but showed openness to Him. Same with the eunuch who wanted to learn but didn't see the full meaning of the Scriptures on his own. That's how I hope the interaction will be when I get to Heaven. :-) )
@@nerysghemor5781 As a 0.5 - 1.5 conservative: Amen, I agree with you also. We all have fallible minds due to our sin nature so glory be to The Lord for being good to us. God Jesus bless you, fellow brother or sister in Christ! :)
At this point why not forgive everyone lol? If you believe in hell then it is certain that not everyone can be forgiven. And salvation is conditional on the basis of your faith, you must have a Christian faith. You cannot be both Christian and universalist. It matters where on the scale you are.
It's hard to know where I am on this spectrum because I'm a little bit of many things on each side. My system shares a lot of different views from a universalist Christian who doesn't fit your video description and a strict conservative who shares some liberal beliefs about the world, and there were some things missing here as well imo but overall thanks for the presentation, I hope it helps others. The most important thing imo is the end point you made about Jesus, and that people know they don't have to fall into a specific category.
@@juansolo3227 look it up and you'll see descriptions of it, there are good examples. Also what? I'm a bit confused of what you're saying but it was a month ago so I'm not sure I have the right to answer anyway lol
@@LoveInUnreality that’s super fair. 😂I’m gonna be honest, I am coming back a month later to your response too and I don’t remember much either lol. I may have wanted to know whether or not you were a universalist yourself and where your beliefs aligned with the universalist I guess. You mentioned you had views that aligned with a universalist and a strict conservative and so I was most likely intrigued by that I guess. You also said it doesn’t matter what categories a person falls in, that probably ticked something off in my head at the time cause you brought that up in the same paragraph as universalism.
@@juansolo3227 ohh well I was also talking about my system as in, multiple people living in one head, some are conservatives some aren't at all. I think I worded it in a way it didn't make as much sense. Honestly I'm not very good at talking about stuff like this as I'm not super knowledgeable on the terms and don't really care tbh. I just try to fit into what I think best describes me moment by moment lol Thanks for replying anyway tho
@@LoveInUnreality fair enough, talking is hard. I get that, I’m dyslexic and also don’t sleep so I don’t sound the most eloquent when I speak to my friends at times. I do feel odded out by your phrasing and feel compelled to ask. I’m not quite sure what you mean by, “multiple people in one head.” What do you mean by that?
Now I'm atheist and come from a LGBTQ household. I just found your channel and tbh I've already gained so much respect for you as you're incredibly informative and thoughtful.
What does it mean to be from a LGBT household ? Are you adopted from a gay couple ? Or has your father later in life became gay or trans ? Or does your mother identify as your father and your father identity as your mother ?
Engaging with the spectrum of Christian beliefs, it's fascinating to see how theological perspectives evolve. From conservative Christians emphasizing biblical inerrancy to progressive Christians challenging traditional views, the landscape is diverse. The discussion often centers around the role of women in ministry, biblical authority, and interpretations of creation. It's crucial to approach these differences with respect, recognizing that beliefs are nuanced and shaped by various factors. Ultimately, the question arises: Where would Jesus stand in this complex theological landscape?
I don't think Jesus has a body count, so I'd assume the answer to "where would he stand" is "against the conquest and violence the church has caused since his passing"
Jesus was very progressive at his time. It's undeniable that he was a social justice warrior himself. That's all I could say. Tbh, I wonder where'd he'd stand too. I feel like he'd hate what most conservative Christians nowadays are doing the same way he'd hate what most liberal Christians are doing. I feel like Jesus was he's own person, like, independent perhaps? He wouldn't necessarily subscribe to one belief or the other. He's like, a middle man.
As someone who is currently on the path to ministry, I often find myself more conflicted by some of these divisions than I would be if I were simply interested in remaining part of the laity. It's one thing to attend a church in which you disagree with some of their theological positions but it's another to be the pastor in a denomination with which you disagree. I would love to know how to best approach these kinds of issues as a member of the clergy.
Act faithfully with your clergy, while understanding that beliefs and other earthly machinations and categorizations of the intellect are only hindrances to be closer to God.
Redeemed Zoomer is just 'S' tier. Great youtuber. Great Niche-tuber. Great Christ-tuber. Love pulling out a RZ video when I'm having religious conversations with people.
Good video. There's a church near me that does exactly what you outlined in stage 2. They have interesting stuff on their sign outside, supporting all sorts of worldly issues like the starbucks unions or stuff like "its the bi-ble not the hetero-ble"
The difference between a conservative Christian and a liberal "Christian" is that the conservative one doesn't have to rip entire sections out of his Bible to make his theology work.
@zfloyd1627 does that even exist in the USA? The only Ethnonationalists I ever hear of are those black liberation movement but 1) they are too small in number to have a significant impact and 2) usually Muslims so I doubt they have any use for a Bible of any kind 😄
priest. obviously. that's a really dumb comment, in almost every language you default to the masculine if you don't know the specific gendered word or if you don't know the subjects gender. you're so caught up in your own fairy tales of "owning" liberals that you forgot to consider that almost no one cares
Great video! But I think conservative 3 and 4 should be switched. Also, I'd like to humbly request a "History of King David, I guess" You style makes sharing these topics with my kids very accessible.
No way, denominational exclusion is far more extreme than youn-gearth Creationism. Very, VERY few Baptists will say that orthodox-practicing Methodists, Lutherans, and so on are damned. More will say that Catholics or even Orthodox are damned, but that's largely due to a lack of understanding of the Church's approach to things like papist Infusion versus Protestant Imputation, or the role of intercession of the saints. All of them will say that Progressive """""Christians""""" are damned because they loathe the Bible and its teachings, dismissing them as obsolete, bigoted, or even immoral. To say that your denomination is the only right one, or a set of only right ones, is a rejection of Jesus' teachings of one Holy, Universal, and Apostolic Church, as well as the Nicene Creed's declaration of the same. Ecumenicalism is the correct approach. Denominations exist because men disagree on open-handed doctrines like the nature of the Lord's Supper, Infusion versus Imputation, the organizational structure of the Holy Orders (Oversees, Deacons, and Elders), while agreeing on absolute Truths (e.g. Jesus is God, Jesus is the only way to Salvation, Jesus' Resurrection and Virgin Birth), and so on. I firmly believe that Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestant Christians that actually believe in the Word of God and practice its Truths accordingly are Christian and will see one-another in Heaven.
@@Robin-sf3gk Creationism is the belief that the universe, and all in it, including life itself, is the handiwork of God and that He directed, orchestrated, and directly worked to make it at His pleasure and His discretion. That's it. If you believe the universe, let alone life, is an accident, you deny God the credit for the works of His Hands. That denial damns you, because it denies the WHO and the WHY. The HOW is open-handed (I believe evolutionary biology is God's means), but the WHO and WHY are non-negotiable.
Really love the end "where would Jesus be" because that is correct! When we are lost, look to the cross, not the world. Think of the Lord and not our own thoughts nor understanding. Appreciate this truly ♡
As someone who falls slightly to progressivism, I still like the way you explained both sides. I agree with the Stages vs Degree distinction since it kind of helps show how willing/likely each side is going to change their views. Only criticism would be that you spent more time explaining the progressive side and their flaws than the conservative side (I don't mean in terms of bias, I mean you didn't go too far into depth about each degree of conservatism like you did stages of liberalism). All in All a good and relevant video.
That’s just because the degrees are more broad in scope and separated, whereas progressivism is just one slippery slope into damnation. He _can’t_ get more specific for the degrees or he’d risk losing truthful accuracy, whereas progressivism is always the same and so can be specified.
@@disguisedcentennial835 There are actually some of us who fall slightly on the progressive side who...well, didn't progress. By this scale I would fall at 0.5 and I actually do have clear lines not just on the right, but also on the left that I won't cross.
It’s weird, when I gave my life to Jesus, I kinda started off as a stage one progressive Christian, and then some how by some miracle, went the completely opposite direction 💯😂💯💯💯
Same here. I think many younger Christians start off this way due to how politics have become so religious. The left is very good at proselytizing by manipulating human empathy.
@@redeemedzoomer6053hey man, great videos. Fellow Zoomer here. If you have trouble reading the word of God, check out podcasts. The one I use is called the Bible in a year. (Yes I know you’re a Presbyterian and you’re Catholic, I think you and I are in the same boat). It’s an extremely easy way to swallow the entire (Catholic) Bible in one year. If you drive for more than 2.5 hours/week, you can probably listen to the entire Bible in 1 year. I’m on my 4th lap now. Great stuff man. Keep it up.
I'm basically degree one specifically because in isolation I think there's room to debate but in practice it comes with a heap of strings attached. Unfortunately, it's easy to not ask that last question and insert one's personal biases as doctrine.
Ever since I returned to Christianity I've been trying to be as middle grounded as possible when it comes to these type of issues. I think regardless of who you are, as long as your belief in Christ is genuine, you are a Christian, full stop.
I understand your point it lacks one thing. If you want believe in the Genuine Christ you are a Christian. That's why we have the Bible to learn about Him. I say this because I've known and met people that say they believe in Jesus Christ and are sincere when they say it but they believe in a different Jesus ie saying that He isn't God. He is God. People can be sincere and sincerely wrong at the same time. I'm glad you returned to Christianity please dig deep into God's word. Jesus is Truth. Eager for your progress in the gospel
@@crazyand2099 ”Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’“ Matthew 7:22-23 NASB1995
The law can really be summed up in 2 words anyways so the theology or answer your looking for is already in scripture but getting a modern example isn’t a bad thing but tbh if Christian’s lived like Christ(most of us) the world would be far far better..
Bro I'm an ethnonationalist, that doesn't mean I dislike other Christian people groups. That only means that you honor your ancestors and respect what they went through, and don't want to see it all thrown in the garbage. Europe is white and Christian.
@@CatholicSoldierX Oh because I assumed you may one of those people who want to be proud of their race and heritage (white people I mean) but they still enjoy non-white music like hip-hop (don't consider it music) and can't stand actual European music
@@AleskyMaxomovishPeshkov I never met someone like that, that sounds more like a racist liberal to be honest. Most of hip-hop is indeed very tasteless.
@@CatholicSoldierX My uncle claimed he confronted and beat up a bunch of so called white supremacists who were listening to rap music. He said according to them their justification for that was because they thought black people were meant to entertain white people. That does kind of sound like the white Southern slave owners actually
Anywhere near that is out of bounds. Either you believe the core tenants of Christianity and take it seriously or don’t believe it at all. Granted some take the expression of that way too strictly to where it’s legalism and not actually Christianity (far conservative side), but if you don’t believe Jesus is the Son of God who died and rose again for humanity, that you can know him personally, and that he is the only way to God, then you’re not a Christian. It’s either that or nothing.
Idk if i agree with you in everythihg theologically but i admire you for learning all this and putting it out there. Ur awesome. U remind me of me if i wasnt too lazy to make a youtube channel.
The YEC thing isn't a marker of conservatism so much as biblical education. Many conservative reformed theologians are not YEC, despite being champions of inerrancy. Inerrancy is about trust; YEC is about interpretation. Never confuse interpretation with trust. It could be said that certain interpretations are more traditional, such as compatibilism (moderate Calvinism), eternal conscious torment or barring women from leading positions of ministry, which have been held by a majority of bible-believing Christian scholars throughout the majority of the last 2000 years. But YEC is not one of those positions. The early church writers were split on it, and from there the church saw much allegorization, and from there much of Christendom was not YEC until the movement really started taking over layman evangelicalism in America in about the 20th century. It's one of various views held on Genesis throughout church history and should not be a test of orthodoxy. EDIT: Also, inerrancy has been around for much longer than a reaction to liberal Christianity. It was there in the first five centuries. The idea that it's a more recent belief is a myth. Really enjoyable video though. 😊
now imagine how many times throughout the history this exact situation happened, where changes were made according to what became socially accepted though that would require perspective thinking and that's too much to ask for when the only thing important are affirmations
thats why i take even videos like this with a grain of salt. I dont fully recognize myself as a Christian so im no master of what goes on in christianity but its videos like this that do it for me. He clearly holds a lot of ill feelings towards more progressive churches despite trying to appear unbiased. Not saying he cant have those feelings but when your entire religion depends on loving your neighbor and then you have people like this everywhere that clearly dont love their neighbor, its hard to take seriously. Its why i left the church, no respect amongst any of them
@@Samookelybrother let me tell you. Jesus thought us to love everyone but he didn’t thought us to love sin. The people going towards the progressive side of Christianity are living in sin and encouraging sin. Like it is clearly stated that being homosexual is a sin. So for a church to tell it is Allright is just simply telling lies so we as Christian’s need to stop this and teaching people how God wants us to life. Idk the verse by head but you remember Jesus seeing people selling stuff in the synagogue and He goes in and makes everyone leave? He didn’t hate those people He just showed you that sin won’t be accepted. May God bless you my friend and turn you back to Him. If you have any questions to me feel free to ask me and I will gladly try to help you my friend
@@florianvriezen1656 i acknowledge that the bible calls it a sin, but having been raised in a very devout culture (whole family raised in dutch reformed) the only thing i didnt agree with was the treatment of these people that i saw around me. My gripe has always just been hypocrites, which i know are impossible to fully get rid of since we all have a tendency to be hypocritical ourselves. I just saw an extreme lack of accountability for other peoples mistreatment in cases where people were close to each other. Im a firm believer in keeping yourself and others around you accountable in a way that’s honest and not meant to harm, even if that means a good deal of self reflection. I agree that christian guilt is taking it too far though, getting stuck up on the past and doing too much self sacrifice isnt productive at all. (edit and i appreciate the offer thank you, I will consider)
@@florianvriezen1656 "The people going towards the progressive side of Christianity are living in sin and encouraging sin." Well they would often say the exact same thing as you, so would you agree that the actual difference is in what different Christians call sin? To my eyes, no one is endorsing sin, it's just that people have very different ideas of what is and isn't sin in the first place. " Like it is clearly stated that being homosexual is a sin." For example, this is a very clear statement, it is also a mistranslation. Homosexuality is a modern example, it does not appear in the original language of the Bible nor in any other ancient document. One could argue about what is or is not included in the meaning of the original text, but to give the impression of exactness in translation where the source text has a different connotation is an inaccurate or misleading translation. How misleading is another question. "So for a church to tell it is Allright is just simply telling lies" I would say that this statement lacks empathy. It's not a lie, people genuinely believe that homosexuality is not a sin. I don't know exactly how we could guarantee a healthy dialogie with other people, but I have to imagine that assuming that they are lying about their own beliefs is not a good start. "so we as Christian’s need to stop this and teaching people how God wants us to life." They would say the same about you.
@@florianvriezen1656 Not loving sin doesn't mean being smug, snide and uncharitable to your opponents who engage in such. Which is what this whole video is about.
Wow! Your best one yet. From this point on, I'll be referring to myself as "Stage One Progressive." I love the way you ended this ditty... "where would Jesus be." Perfect!
To be at, for example, stage/degree 5, is it required to hold all of the other previous views? Would someone who holds partially to a view of a higher number just be placed at that point, or would they be placed in the same spot as something they may or may not believe? If someone holds beliefs on both sides of the spectrum, are the numbers averaged? If they are averaged, then is there any way to show that their beliefs are in any way different from someone who is simply closer to the middle of the spectrum? These honestly aren't even purely critiques, and I'd expect you to probably have answers to at least a few that just weren't spelled out in the video, but I find the system interesting so wanted to try and find them out.
I would count myself in the first degree of christian conservatism even though I am far right on the political spectrum. This would show how religion would differ from politics.
@@maxzation I’m not capitalist, I’m authoritarian far right, capitalism is libertarian. I don’t wanna express my economic views but I’m definitely not socialist nor capitalist
Switch degree one and two around, and I think you have it. For example, it is more likely that one will accept female pastors who affirm inerrancy, but not accept someone who denies inerrancy. However, it also depends on whether or not the ranking is completely linear.
The thing with inerrancy I think is language. The Reformation partly occurred partly out of translations of the bible. Using repentance as an example, the Latin i.e. Catholic translation had the phrase "pay penance" while the earlier Greek translation had the phrase "repent" meaning two totally different things and ideas.
This was a pretty good video, and your explanations were pretty fair for both extremes. I've been beginning to read Tim Keller's book "The Prodigal God" that talks about the Parable of the Prodigal Son, and this video sort of reminds me both about the younger and elder brother, and how both reflect two far extremes (one is outright rebellion, and other is cold self-righteousness/religiosity). We should make sure that we do our best to obey the Lord because of what Jesus did for us, but not become self-righteous or condescending to others.
What is also interesting is that these two extremes also appear in the two main groups Jesus had theological debates with during his ministry: the Sadduces were theologically liberal in that they ignored all scripture besides the Thora and even denied the afterlife. The Pharisees on the other hand were the self-righteous legalists. There is this awesome episode recounted in Mark 12, Matthew 22 and Luke 20 were our Lord refutes both of the factions nonsense back to back.
I really like this slide. I’m a 1/2 Conservative. I am a member of a church that has 2 or 3 ordained women, a few teaching pastors, and I frequent one that has no women pastors, I don’t think churches that do makes them a false church. Thanks Zoomer. 😎
No, i think its because, let's say, im at one for progressive, and yet i believe in some stuff in 1 conservative, it will still make me 1 progressive because of the fact that conservative requires that i dont belive in progressive stuff
I think conservative degrees 1 and 2 should be switched. There are plenty of people who ardently defend inerrancy, but they've been bitten by the egalitarian bug. Other than that, pretty solid explanation, I think.
I mean any set of diverse positions on a general topic put in a form of a bimodal spectrum is gonna be simplified the heck out of so there's so much things that could be moved around and still kinda make sense, right?
@PvlmVIsHere I totally agree. I could nit pick a few other things but I understand that it is a very generalized video. But in my experience, I think there are more people who affirm inerrancy and female pastors than people who reject inerrancy and female pastors. If you reject inerrancy, then you dont really have any reason to reject female pastors imo. Of course, there is plenty of overlap, but generally I think this is true. But since zoomer comes from the mainline, I can understand why he set it this way because female pastors are far more common than the more conservative denominations.
@@Labrador_Productions1 Rejecting inerrancy means that you allow the Bible to be wrong about things that don't really matter to the main purposes of the Bible. Teaching about how to run a church is unlikely to fall into that category - arguments for allowing female pastors while still following the Bible generally claim that those instructions were given to a particular church in a particular context, and while the underlying principle still applies to us today, obedience to that principle looks very different for us than it did for them. Whether the argument succeeds is a different matter, but it doesn't have much to do with the truth or falsity of biblical inerrancy.
I think something very important to remember as well, the earliest churches, the ones who the epistles were wrote to, had doctrinal errors that Paul, Peter, James and Timothy had to correct; but they still considered them beloved brothers. This isn’t an excuse for those churches to keep living in those errors, but for us to be gracious toward them
Im probably a 2nd degree conservative Christian. As a biochemist I understand that evolution is real, and intelligent design seems reasonable to me. I also understand there is a lot of historical evidence that Christ exists and rose from the dead, and I put my faith in Him. I also realise that today we are fighting a spiritual war. Funny think is I used to be a cynnical atheist 4-5 years ago.
I think that evolution as a concept is real but not radical evolution like we used to be apes. I dont even believe darwin believed that at the end of his life.
I think this topic is a little more complicated than the video does justice. I personally, know multiple people who would technically be both progressive and conservative by this scale. For example: one is young-earth creationist yet also LGBTQ affirming, one believes the bible is inerrant yet also believes women can be pastors... you get the idea. I think many of these beliefs are oddly somewhat independent of each other. People often hold both very progressive and very conservative ideas at the same time, so maybe a more accurate title of the video would be "Liberal vs Conservative Christian Beliefs explained." Nonetheless, I really enjoyed the video and found it helpful. Thank you for maintaining a neutral delivery. For context: I am an atheist/agnostic ex Seventh-Day Adventist (a generally conservative denomination), who is exploring other religions/denominations/worldviews/etc. Most of these people (including the two examples) are SDA.
There are plenty of self-described Christian sects/denominations that depart greatly from the Nicene Creed in their beliefs and would by no means be described as progressive in their doctrines (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons).
Indeed, we Jehovah's Witnesses are far more dedicated to a strict, literal understanding of the Bible than the Catholic church or most protestants, and according to at least one survey are THE MOST anti abortion denomination, however, we do not accept the Trinity, because its not in the Bible but rather a later accretion, and are Annihilationist, since that seems to be what the Bible teaches, Ecclesiastes 9:4-6, Psalm 6:5 and so on. However, if you start from the point of believing the Bible DOES teach the Trinity, you need to really doubt the Bible to doubt the Trinity. The Unitarians had that problem, though there are still Bible believing Unitarians, just not in the UU.
Its more complicated. It was common back in the day before people actually knew the science between evolution and geology, but since than no official Catholic statements said that only young Earch creation is acceptable, some stating explicitly that evolution is acceptable. Idk about Orthodox situation since Orthodox Church is way more decentralized so I believe there is no "official" stance on that matter.
YEC has been the position of the Church since its inception, only changing around the time of the enlightenment. People like augustine denied the literal view of genesis 1, but because he believed the universe was younger, not older
I am a Catholic and I have settled on intelligent design. Most people in the intelligent design world are either old earth creationists or theological evolutionists, which honestly overlap greatly. This is basically me after reading incessantly on the issue.
I don't really understand you sometimes, more when you have told about conservative. (i guess, i am conservative on a first stage) But yes, somewhere you literally right. Your video inspires me. Thank you for your content 🙌
I have always felt that I'm a "fence-rider," and no, not necessarily the Revelations 3:15-16 type Christian, but I have always found myself seeking balance and rationality. Watching this video really helped me confirm where I am in the philosophical / theological part of my identity, seeing truths and discrepancies in many denominations / doctrines. I equally see dangers on both sides that I believe hinder God's ultimate plan for the Church in this era. While compromising your beliefs is never the answer, I think taking the time to go back to what the absolutes are can really help all Christians (regardless of background) see what's most important: We are all sinners that fall short of God's glorious standard; Salvation is received (through the gift of Jesus' holy sacrifice), not earned; We are called to love (regardless of disagreements); This fallen Earth is just temporary, for greater, more eternal things are yet to come...
Well done! A few comments I might add: 1. If I had to draw a line on where Christianity ends, it would be 3-stage Liberalism, because if you aren't basing your faith on the Bible, then on what do you base your faith? 2. If I had to put myself anywhere, it would be 2nd degree Conservatism, because if the Bible isn't inerrant, you can make it say whatever you want to say, which is a very dangerous form of Hermeneutics called "Eisegesis." 3. I like how you distinguished the "Religious spectrum" per se from the Political spectrum. I am economically Left-leaning, because those are the ones that help the poor. So I guess you could say that I'm politically moderate.
I'd think the 'inerrant' part mostly has to do with mistranslations and the like. After all, the original language wasn't English, and surely there are some concepts in the original language that can't be easily explained in English.
I'm pretty sure "Only Catholics are saved" is not a teaching in the Catholic Church. There are some who believe that, and others who believe that salvation can be found outside the church, it can just be more difficult with more temptations.
As an ethnonationalist, that aspect of myself does not really influence my religious beliefs. I dont see how it is part of Degree 5 when ethnonationalism isn't religious for most of us. It's like saying "and here at degree 4 we have the MAGA conservatives..."
I grew up in a family with Catholic elders (great-grandparents and grandmother). I was a Christian for like 3 months when I was 6 years old because the Catholic school I attended made us go through catechesis and religious classes. Since none of what I was taught was actively enforced by my family nor my peers, my own analysis made me realize how little sense it made and stopped believing, without understanding that religion is a social construct, of course. Still, I was still emotionally attached to the idea of Jesus and God. Like, I wanted Jesus and I to be best friends and I still prayed to God every night asking for everyone in the world to be well. I'd say things like "If you exist, which I hope you do, please allow everyone to be happy", this all despite, at a rational level, understanding that God didn't exist. It just gave me emotional comfort and warmth. As time passed, I eventually talked to the people in my life about it and became agnostic but atheistic regarding anthropocentric religions (which I am still, but even the agnostic part is fading off). It's weird because even though that was the case, I still appreciated prayer sessions and the little sermons we were part of every cold morning before class began at school more than my actually Christian peers. It's funny in the context of this video because essentially all the verses they recited were about social justice, especially being selfless. I'm not entirely sure if religion itself is good or bad for society as a whole and its individuals, but I'm leaning towards "it shouldn't exist because staunch belief in something that is essentially myth is inherently irrational and tends to damage critical thinking", but I'm not sure. So yeah, despite me not believing a single thing about the Biblical canon, I still feel some sort of attachment to Catholicism. I am attached to Catholic customs, iconography, places of worship, etc. They make me feel warm and comfortable and at peace. They make me feel at home. I love to just casually enter churches and stay there for a while. They're beautiful. I'm not Catholic, but I still feel attachment to it and its cultural manifestations. It's odd because I'd love to be a Catholic, but I just don't believe in religion at all. Is there a specific term for this? What can I do about it? :o
I could go on about the rationality of Christianity, and how it is perfectly compatible with our understanding of the universe, but I would just recomend prayer.
Funnily enough, a direct translation from Hebrew does seem to actually support evolution being used to create man. Metatron has a good video on Adam and Eve, where Adam is referred to as The Adam, as if Adam was one of a pre-existing species.
@@mysteriousstranger5873 Exactly. It's called Divine-Guided Evolution. Whatever primate/pre-human creature existed, God gave it the type of rational soul that led to our innate morality and advanced rational consciousness we have today. Considered like "Patient Zero" of humans is what you'd evolutionary refer to Adam and Eve. Biblically supported incest for the last resort of the survival of the species if there were no more humans. Completely in line with how natural evolution is.
I went through this phase for a while and now I want to become a Catholic. It is a sign that is calling to convert. Stay on that track even if it requires years which it did for me.
I wanted to touch on your last question and maybe spark a conversation I haven't seen yet in the comments: I feel like I have some reason to believe that, going by the ways you have described everything, that Jesus would be somewhere in between 2nd and 3rd stage conservative. My best argument for that is simply because I just read through the entire Bible my first time, and based on the gospels and scripture of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, it kind of doesn't really fit into anything else by my best guess. But, I also put myself into that category, so maybe it's also an open ended question where answers depends on one's own fit into this spectrum?
It is interesting, and it really is difficult huh, cause every denomination, whilst they agree* with the Nicene Creed, have their own varying interpretations of Christ, big or small. For example, Catholics belief that Jesus literally turned his body and blood into bread and wine (that process is called transubstantiation), and Protestants belief it’s a metaphor. Depending on which interpretation you accept, Jesus will be thought of by each side as more Liberal or Conservative.
Honestly, I think ethnonationalism is on an entirely different axis than most of the other traits discussed in this video. It's entirely possible to have universalist ethnonationists that think that religion is fake but useful in how it inspires social cohesion. A lot of them convert to Norse paganism as a result.
I cant tell if the dislike ratio is from conservatives comparing themselves to other conservatives, progressives comparing themselves to other progressives, or conservatives and progressives comparing to each other.
Liberal and conservatism isn't nessessarily an either or situation ya can take elements from both sides, be liberal about some things and conservative on others, for instance I'm liberal on most social and economic issues but generally side with conservatives when it comes to matters of property and gun rights aswell as the general values that conservatives push such as the value of personal discipline and work ethic, something I greatly wish that my liberal to left leaning friends would would take more seriously and stop dismissing as " harmful capitalist work culture"
It's liberal to say drinking isn't a sin in Christianity anymore. It's liberal to say that LGBT people should come to church. It's liberal to say that God elects anymore. I don't think you've been around enough different people
5:34 good job bro, you projected the side your don't agree with as the soy wojak, and you made the side you agree with the Chad, good job, you won the imaginary argument, 11/10
im crying the conservative drawing actually looks like redeemed zoomer
Lol
Nahh Fr
This drawing is literally what I think when I hear "reformed"
bald zoomar
Don’t cry
I'm non-religious and I can't understand for the life of me why anyone on the liberal side of the spectrum would insist on calling themselves a christian. It's like drinking fanta and insisting it's orange juice.
Alot of them are more just culturally christian than actually christian tbh
I'm an athiest but I grew up in very religious households so I feel like I can try and explain this one
People tend to look at religion for a guide. A way of thinking, a list of morals, a sense of community, etc. It's nice for those people to grow through those ideologies and to believe in a god and have something to work for in their lives. The reason why they may lean more to the liberal side of the spectrum may just be because believe in everything the church has to say, including the negative, may just be uncomfortable for them if they have family or people they care about who may be negatively affected by those beliefs. They could also just not know every detail that comes with being Christian and would instead of seeking salvation for themselves, use Christianity and the community behind it to create a better, more accepting world for their family, even if it may border on what is widely known in more dedicated Christian ideologies as heresy
The problem is, some people just want to be religious without feeling restricted i.e. they want to have their cake and eat it. I wouldn't take this as far as to say that any Christian who goes against their faith in minor ways isn't a real Christian (masturbation, looking at horoscope readings, greedily overeating) because there are very few people who cannot sin at all and some sins are clearly much worse than others (murder, theft, torture), but if someone's going to the point of declaring that a particular act isn't a sin at all then to me, that reflects a lack of integrity on their part. Those kinds of people need to properly reflect on why they feel bad about some aspect of their own faith, then abandon it if they can't resolve their cognitive dissonance. However, I accept that might not be possible in very conservative environments where people would be treated as outcasts or even persecuted if they did that.
@@j1233191 The biggest one for me, is all of the interpretations on gender identity and especially sexuality... they just feel so wrong. How can a loving God judge his creations for loving each other, regardless of their gender identity or orientation? I definitely don't believe God would ever condone any destructive or non-consensual, nor overtly lustful activity (the very reasons for the destruction of S&G). I just have a really hard time believing that they would condone consensual love. I want to ask the really conservative people how they think God would interpret an A-sexual, same sex couple? Because technically that wouldn't be violating any scripture I can think of, since there is zero sexual interaction going on there. So is that still going against God's rules?
@@thebarbaryghostsf You kind of seem like one of the stage 3 progressives that RZ talked about - I'll go through your points one by one. 1) There are different kinds of things that we English speakers call "love", love is a very vague term in our language. It could refer to familial love, friendly love, compassionate love (i.e. loving God and your neighbour as yourself) and erotic passion (performing sexual acts on someone or something.) Would it make sense to say that a rapist or a stalker fuelled with erotic passion "loves" their target? No, and it most certainly wouldn't make sense to say that a paedophile or a zoophile "loves" children or animals either. The typical prostitute user doesn't really "love" the one whose services they're using, and I think we can agree on all those things. Compassionate love is vastly more important than any other kind of love in God's eyes, Jesus did imply that people must prefer him to even their own parents or siblings. 2) The Sodomites weren't simply overly lustful - they did engage in a variety of sins as listed by a variety of Biblical writers, but it was mentioned by Jude in the New Testament that they "practiced unnatural vice". Considering that lying with a man as with a woman is spoken of as being an abomination in the Pentateuch and the early Christians were originally a Jewish sect, it's obvious what this is a reference to. Read Romans 1:26-27 for a more explicit description of homosexuality as being unnatural. 3) The idea of anything being OK if it's consensual is moral minimalism. It's a secular, intention-based utilitarian idea that goes directly against the deontological, act-based ethics of Christianity that seek to promote moral maximalism - Jesus himself said "Be perfect, just as your Heavenly Father is perfect". Using prostitutes and having casual sex can also be consensual, but I doubt you'd agree so passionately with those specific things, all because they're not emotionally charged issues or seen as things to be positively affirmed (except in the ultra-liberal Netherlands, but that's another story...) in the way that LGBT matters are. 4) If a same sex couple doesn't actually engage in sex, why are they even in a relationship to begin with? What's the point of forming that kind of bond with someone if you're not going to consummate it? "Asexual" and "same sex couple" are mutually contradictory, if they're not engaging in erotic activities including kissing, then they'd be better off staying single and relating to each other as just friends. St Paul himself said that husbands and wives must only abstain from sex for limited amounts of time in case the devil exploits their lack of self-control and he also said that if anyone burns with lust, they should marry. So it's clear from this that you can't cleanly separate sex from romantic relationships in general. In conclusion, I'd say that you need to consider whether you would give in and say that prostitution or casual sex or other kinds of sexual sins aren't sins or at least aren't that bad if the people engaging in them had become increasingly influential, prominent and accepted in the same way that people who have sex with the same sex did. If you say "no", then you're being a hypocrite and not giving all people who engage in consensual sex the same treatment. If you say "yes", then like RZ pointed out, you're just becoming increasingly distant from essential Christian doctrine like progressives in general.
I think I'm literally at 0. I'm catholic and I remember going to a Bible study and the reverend taught the class. He would talk about the deeper meaning of the Bible and the significance of repeating numbers. And I vaguely remember him saying that God creating the world in 6 days could be literal, or something different. I wish I had my notes still, but I remember him to encourage us to have an open mind about the meaning of every passage we read.
That’s surprising to hear because practically every Christian I’ve met, regardless of where they are on the scale, will strongly defend their point of view and always call the other objectively wrong
I say this as a Christian, Christians never encourage you to have your own point of view.
@@torpid5092 I think it kinda helps that my mom grew up Lutheran before converting to Catholic and my grandfather a die hard Catholic didn't mind. So I kinda got a mix of Christian teaching. And the reverend of my church was just a very kind and respectful man. Again with the whole number thing as I did find some of my notes. He claimed we don't know how they measured time. So these people who lived to be 200 years old may have very well been that old or it just means something different. That's just one example. But yeah I do just kinda vibe in the middle
@@torpid5092idk what kinda Christians you met but my pastor is always asking for different opinions so that we can compare and search for the right answer.
But my pastor came to the same thing, we were discussing the possible meanings because of the verse that says 1 day to God is like 1000 years to us and 1000 years is like 1 day. We know he made it for sure, it says it right there. But we also gotta consider the fact that God isn't bound by time and he made our time possible.
Then again, I'm pretty young and the church is small so we get more time to really discuss. Might be different in other places.
"that God creating the world in 6 days could be literal, or something different." I take that view too, but I think evolution is a farce since the math is bad. I've not seen much of this view, but basically I have suspicions young earth is correct, but think the Bible doesn't demand it and "the science" can't study it.
Here me out, leave the Catholic Church, I know people who have went through it and it sound like almost a cult, try and build a relationship with Jesus, not just be part of a religion
I disagree with the notion that those on the liberal side are likely to become more liberal. Rather, I would tie it to how firmly one is getting their beliefs from scripture. For example, those who believe women should be leading churches because things "should be fair", or because "we're in the 21st century, come on already", might be likely to continue to slide. However, those who think that Paul's passages on women in ministry are largely localized for a specific context and that a more general Biblical context seems to elevate women into a position that allows for church leadership are still basing their views on scripture and are unlikely to stray away from scripture, because in their view they never had strayed in the first place.
Great video as always though.
Yes. This is a good way of putting it. There are numerous other ideas that would fall into this video's first three levels of "progressive" Christianity that can also be very much based on a Biblical foundation. I think Redeemed Zoomer, being a bit more on the conservative side, may not be as aware of how that can be the case for some things.
This video is conservative bullshit
generally agree. I grew up in a church with a woman pastor, and we have always been a literal Bible believing creationist church. we found positions in scripture to match these positions from the get-go, not as an excuse to make things more fair.
Women should not be pastors, priests, or leading churches. Timothy 2:12 is clear. Picking and choosing what we bring forward into modern times subverts that the Bible is the infallible Word of God. When we try manipulating it with mental gymnastics, we enter into disobedience and, yes, even heresy.
The Bible claims to be infallible in 2 Peter 1:19, “We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable.” Peter continues with a description of how Scripture came to be: “No prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20-21).
Also, we see infallibility implied in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, “All Scripture is God-breathed” and has the effect of producing servants of God who are “thoroughly equipped for every good work.” The fact that God “breathed” Scripture insures that the Bible is infallible, for God cannot breathe out error. The fact that the Bible equips God’s servants “thoroughly” for service shows that it guides us into truth, not error.
@psychiatricallyinclined I believe that you are mistaken, and reading things in the way that you do is potentially dangerous in terms of the actions it may lead one to take.
First of all, what do you think about the Pharisees? They knew the law extremely well, and tended to take it quite literally. Yet, Jesus proved that they were interpreting things in the wrong way or with the wrong spirit on numerous occasions. Jesus Himself contradicted literal interpretations from the Torah, for example when He allowed his disciples to eat without first cleaning their hands.
There is also reason to believe that Paul is speaking to a specific historical and geographical context when he says that women should not lead. Paul is quite egalitarian for his time, even saying that there is no difference between slave and master, male and female, etc. in the eyes of God, and telling husband and wife that they are each other's property sexually, as opposed to the man ruling the woman. It is true that it can be dangerous to interpret scripture to fit your own view, but the Bible's infallibility does not prohibit context. In fact, removing context simply to take it as it is creates many contradictions and leads to many misinterpretations.
Some of the people whose opinions I trust the least are people who constantly insist that scripture is "clear" on issues that have caused great controversy within the church. There is usually a reason for that controversy. Sometimes conservatives have it right, and sometimes liberals do, and sometimes they are both wrong. But if it's not widely accepted, dismissing it as "clear," and claiming that the other side is just "leaning on their own understanding," suggests a lack of true consideration of the point. Which I suppose is understandable, since in your perspective, there is no reason to try to interpret anything. But I would suggest that you strongly reconsider that perspective. I wonder how many people have been needlessly driven away from the church because of it? I suspect quite a lot.
If people read the Holy Bible in full context or even in general this would eliminate many problems within the faith. 💯
Ya, reading the Bible made me Atheist! If any in the Christian cult read the Bible, we wouldn’t have the issues we have today……
@Ex_christianAm As Karl Barth explained, since you are not saved, you just read the Human aspect of the Bible, but the Hole Spirit did not revealed the Divine aspect.
@@Ex_christianthis name and account looks like it was made by reddit atheists.
@@Ex_christianoh a typical troll, go back to your bridge
@@pedroguimaraes6094 there is no Devine aspect. That’s why you need faith, faith in make believe, because none of it is real. Otherwise, if it is real and there is a god, he’s a dick!
I'm not sure how well this spectrum works for certain branches of Christianity. For instance, in Catholicism you will come across some extremely theologically conservative people who in many ways are way more conservative than Protestant fundamentalists and yet they do not support YEC.
Sorry for asking: What is YEC?
@@leusher9024 Young-earth Creation. Basically, the Earth is roughly six thousand years old, dinosaurs lived alongside humans, etc. It's based on the assumption that that the first eleven chapters of the Book of Genesis were intended as history rather than allegory or epic.
I understand the spectrum is supposed to be a simplification but it's definitely evangelical protestant centric
Most Church Fathers took Genesis as literally and were not YEC. There is alternative ideas as to how the days were 6 literal days and the eslapsing of time between Genesis events @@gunsgalore7571
I mean the Big Bang was theorized by a Catholic priest
I am a “progressive” Christian. It’s not because I feel any guilt over historical Christianity or a need to deconstruct inherited wisdom, or doubt the scripture. It’s because I find it impossible to recognize the message of the Gospel in most American Protestant Churches. It seems like a lot of evangelicals in particular are more interested in social cohesion and order than actually following Christ.
Which isn’t to say that social cohesion and order aren’t good things in and of themselves - they just aren’t Christian
agreed
I agree.
I'm a lapsed Catholic (who wants to get back in the church and practice more) and I classify myself as progressive, although I respect the traditions and conventions of the church.
If people actually listened to the freakin book they'd all be conservative. God doesn't just change things because you got progressive lmao
This is difficult to agree with because of things like women’s suffrage and civil rights in the church. Things have changed and the majority of conservatives now agree that those things are good, but back years ago, many conservative Christians didn’t. Progressivism has moved its way through conservatives too
Being “conservative” is too dependent on the culture, modern Christianity is practiced much differently than that of the Christianity following Jesus. Maybe the book never changed but your interpretation of the book was given to you by a cultural context that is radically different to that of other eras of history. For instance the acceptance of racism in the mainstream American church to the strong convictions opposing racism in modern day America in the mainstream church. Bottom line being culturally conservative doesn’t mean you defend the bible more closely, just a particular cultural perspective and context of the bible. This is evidenced by proliferation of denominations all claiming to be “biblical”.
have you heard of the entirety of the bible? like between new testament and old testament almost everything changed significantly
Well many "progressive" interpretations are not actually changes to the Bible but are in response to a more accurate reading of the Bible in historical context or in some cases correcting mistranslations.
A lot of the most inflammatory words in the Bible: "fornication", "abomination", "sodomy" are mistranslations, that do not accurately reflect the original meaning of the text.
@@Grokford got any greek and hebrew to back up your claims?
Nice video, but i think this scale only really works for Protestantism, since for Catholicism for example, evolutionism is very commonly accepted but denomination exclusivism is a dogma (extra ecclesiam nulla salus) which kind of breaks the scale.
While denomination exclusivism may be dogma, I don’t think it’s a widely held belief among individual Catholics.
@@walterbackgammon8436 someone who disagree with catholic dogma has no business calling themselves catholic.
agree. video seems to fall short in that aspect.
@@Gaius453 ask the German bishops that.
@@Gaius453 I would disagree. Suppose you do agree with 95% of Catholic dogma but question or are unsure about the other 5%? What then would you refer to yourself as? Not Orthodox. Not Protestant. Something else? Idk. Those are my thoughts, would love to hear yours.
The problem when we group things in binary groupings is that we focus too much on the macro of things instead of the subsets. For example, someone may believe in many progressive ideologies but may have very strict anti-abortion views in all circumstances, and vice-versa.
Wow, you're trying to take like .001% of a group and say "they aren't all like that." What a completely useless way to look at the world. I'm sorry, if 12 people in a group of a million are anti-abortion, the group isn't anti-abortion and it's fair to say that the group is fine with abortion.
I think the problem is that all ideology is fundamentally anti Christian because they are not based on scripture and the presuppositions that they make in some cases reject the idea or neglect the existence of God such as liberalism, socialism and fascism all these ideologies reject God to varing extents and so are false at their foundation hence any ideals made through them although some may align with Christian ideals are false and corrupted.
Simply because humans tend to make everything way oversimplyfied in order to decide guickly. Thinking objectively is hard
@one could say, it's kimpossible.....
@TheWandererOfDreams What’s the sitch?
I liked the line at the end "Where would Jesus be?" A good question that lots of Christians (including myself) need to ask more often.
Edit: Hey mom! I'm famous!
Jesus is an ethnonationalist. St. Paul was too, for that matter.
Considering Jesus wasn't a christian at all, I would assume he would be no where on the spectrum.
@@cx9082nah he believed he was God.
I am very sure he believed he existed.
How? He wanted to save everyone, treated everyone fair, and even spoke against that. Like in the parable with the Good Samaritan, or how God said to the Israelites in Leviticus they treat any foreign person well, regardless of ethnicity, because they were foreigners n Egypt. He makes a point so many times that everyone is equal because we all sin, he never mistreated someone because he was perfect. He loved all of everyone because he created them. If Jesus can't because though he was fully man, he was still fully God, and it is impossible for God to sin because it goes against his very being.
I'm a 3 degree Conservative (btw I'm a Russian Baptist, but I deeply respect Orthodox Christianity).
Bro, I like your videos.
@@Mugiwara_Luffy_Samaif they dont have Jesus then yes they going to the hot place
@@Mugiwara_Luffy_Sama
he is saying that like all humans if they reject Jesus then down they go
@@Mugiwara_Luffy_SamaAll people are sinners and fall short of God's standard. I think what you're trying to ask is if being transgender is a sin which yes it is because it distorts the creation of God, a man can not become a woman and a woman can not become a man, God created you unique and special and it should be cherished over a feeling. A few scriptural references are Genesis 1:27, Genesis 5:2, and Matthew 19:4.
Another thing I'd add is God can not make errors and believing in trans ideology spits in God's face by telling Him that He made you wrong and He has fault which is untrue, as if He did have fault He could not be God.
A few scriptural references Deuteronomy 32:4, Psalm 18:30, Matthew 5:48, Romans 12:2.
I did not know that there Russian Baptists
@@kingxavior54 of course, there are even Russian Old Catholics, Russian Lutherans, Methodists, Mormons etc :)
Great video, but I feel grouping these 'levels' on a 2D scale might be a little reductive?
For example, bringing up 'scripture denial'...Surely Christians on both sides of this scale and across denominations are capable of using bad hermeneutics to affirm their beliefs. It isn't simply "denial" because they interpret scripture on one issue or another in a way that someone else perceives is incorrect.
I think that to make a video where he can explain this spectrum and make it digestible by a wide audience, one has to take some liberties in not being so wholly encompassing of all situations.
Beyond that, I think what he was going for is that traits in each prior step are sort of prequisite to the next, as opposed to being solely exclusive to that point on the graph.
I am assuming if you get to the scripture denial part of the scale that he means you are someone who outright denies something specifically stated in the Bible, not interpreting it differently. That would be when it says do not commit adultery and a scripture denier would say that it’s fine.
I agree with your point but technically only 1 dimensional scale. A 2 dimensional scale might be a bit better
It’s a bit different though. No conservative Christian would deny the authority of scripture.
It’s a 7 minute video, it will indeed be reductive.
I was on the progressive road for a few years until i realised that i had changed & twisted scripture so much that the God i was praying to was the completely wrong one. I decided that if i am going to be a Christian, I want to do it right, starting with accepting God, wholly and completely as He has revealed to us, and not just what i want. Same with the Bible
Ive had an absolute blast since!!! The real true God of the Bible shows UP when you let Him!!!!!
So is your God the one who slaughtered the first born of Egypt or the one who ordered his people to enact laws that required women who were raped to be sold to their rapist? Oh! Maybe the version of God who sent literal bears to kill the children who joked about the prophet Elisha's bald head? That version is fun. Real comic book villain that one.
Absolutely! Amen!✝
There's no place for Christianity, Islam, or other fairy tale religions in the 21st century, they hold back scientific and social progress and need to be called out for what they are - wishful thinking and delusions.
I vary from a 0.5 on liberal scale to a 0.5 on the conservative scale. I respect conservative beliefs, although I stop really agreeing at stage 3 conservatism because at that point it’s just denying science and more of a cult than an actual religion. For liberalism, I think stage 2 is the max I can tolerate. Anything beyond stage 3 is not true Christianity.
Amen! I haven't wore two different fabrics simultaneously in years! Plus, it saved me from a lot of guilt the other day when I was beating my slave, but I found out it's totally fine because he survived a few days. Leviticus and Exodus have opened my eyes.
The touch grass meme got me so good. Thank you again for breaking down some nuances that will help delineate certain groups of people for us.
I find your clarity refreshing. Not just on this video, but all that I have been binge watching!
This was really well explained! I think I sort of place as a 1.5 degree Conservative, though this was really good at explaining everything in a non-biased way
So you are going to hell?
@@antoniofirenze What? Do elaborate?
Agreed as like a -.5 degree progressive on this scale.
Personally I would put myself 2.5
@@jleewaters same here.
as an atheist, i'm always annoyed when people say that atheists want to destroy religion, or believe it's no use. that's an antitheist, not an atheist
Athiest is just not believing in any relegion
@@Im_a_sexafender exactly! we don't care what you believe, we just don't believe it ourselves.
yea the little side-comment about “if you’re a non-believer and have negative opinions about christianity, then you’re a normal non-believer” was really shady. persecution complex much? or maybe it’s projection
Yeah, Atheism isn't destroying the church. We're doing a fine job of that on our own. Truthfully, if we were doing the will of Jesus and following Him, not just using Him for a mascot, there would be fewer Atheists in general
@@johntaylor6851 i agree %100 percent, so many are turned away from religion by the people supposed to get them into it. i always hear "i went to Catholic school and now i'm not a Christian" and it breaks my heart.
(not ragging on Catholics, that's jus the first example i remembered.)
I’m starting to love this channel. I love getting your perspective on the divides between faiths
That last line wrapped up the video beautifully, well done!
I think this is an oversimplification. After all, I think most people would agree that non-Nicene groups such as Oneness Pentecostals, LDS, and JWs certainly aren’t theologically liberal or progressive. Heretical in their rejection of the Trinity, to be sure, but on all the other matters, they fall into either the moderate or conservative camps. There’s also the issue of mainline vs evangelical churches. While mainline congregations are generally theologically liberal and evangelical churches are generally theologically conservative, there are evangelical theologians like Rob Bell whose understanding of salvation falls firmly into the universalist camp.
I mean, this is a 7 minutes video, of course it will be simplification.
For extra accuracy, add a perpendicular axis for heretical levels I guess
Why would Pentecostals be a non-Nicene group? I can't speak for all pentecostal churches, but most of us do belive in every point of in the Nicene creed
As an LDS person, I'm not quite sure what you mean when you mention us rejecting the Trinity. We believe in God, Jesus, and the Spirit as three separate beings. Is that uncommon in other faiths?
@@barnabasveliczky3647 Oneness Pentecostals, not Pentecostals in general. Oneness is a heresy that denies the Trinity
To be a progressive christian is to be the lukewarm church that Jesus warned about, to be an extreme conservative christian is to serve another master over Christ. All in all are all sinners and Christ died so that we may be set free, if anything were supposed to unite to save America not fall into the bickering that makes adults look immature compared to children.
Also dang its been a minute since Ive seen this channel. Absolutely based and informative video
Facts.
I think that it's a mistake to consider zeal as a substitute for faithfulness.
To be an extreme conservative Christian means who follow the Bible word for word. The conservative isn't sinning.
@@Uncle_Ruckus_
Not necessarily,
Everyone thinks that they're interpretation is most in line with the will of God.
And yet people disagree.
Your following word for word might be someone else's cultural bias.
I don't think that anyone is sinning merely by following their best understanding.
But I do think that everyone is obligated to a certain amount of due diligence when it comes to being critical about their own beliefs and about being patient with those who disagree.
@@Grokford you know those red sentences? Those don't change no matter how many times it's been translated. The Bible changing it's meanings is a lie atheists and anti Christians say a lot. It's now being reinterpreted because we are living in the final days in revelation. Everywhere will be deception to lead you astray from God, even in the churches.
I am neither conservative nor progressive. I choose the best out of both worlds.
Same.
grew up between 3 and 4 conservative, and am an agnostic now. it was a long and tough journey but im at peace with it now. did any of you have similar or different journeys through the spectrum?
grew up at 3 conservative (young earth creationist, evolution-denier, etc.), now agnostic atheist. i don’t think i really entertained more progressive forms of christianity because, as i’m sure you know, conservative christianity teaches an “all or nothing” way of thinking about the world in general, but especially the faith and the bible.
my journey out of christianity began with two simple questions: why do i believe the words in the bible? answer: well it’s the word of god. why do i believe it’s the word of god? because it says so..in the bible.
when i realized that reasoning was patently circular, it made me a lot more skeptical of what i was being told.
@@TaeyxBlack"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink"
Im a muslim but im subscribed and i really enjoy learning about christianity. God bless brother
But why
Praying you see the truth Geo
@@JamalImran-mt2us because i seek knowledge
May the Lord bless you and may He open your eyes to the truth.
May the Lord bless you and may He open your eyes to the truth.
Wonderfully said! I recently heard Paul VanderKlay refer to himself as a “Mere Christianity” kind of person (alluding to the book by CS Lewis). This is my view as well.
I was chrismated into the Eastern Orthodox Church last year, following a series of clear-and at times miraculous-signs. My Lord wants me there, and at my specific place of worship. He has brought me such joy in these things. But I was already a Christian before that, and the Holy Spirit was a major, felt presence in my life as a Baptist. My parents are beautiful Christians, as are other loved ones in Protestant or Catholic denominations.
There is a “line” somewhere, of course, but God sees our hearts and is always calling to each of us. In that process, we are all going to misinterpret or simply not hear about a lot of true things. We see through a glass darkly. God works all things to the good of those who love him and activates those who love Him wherever we are.
One day, we will no longer look through a glass but directly in His beautiful face. There will be no need for denominations because we will live with the unveiled Truth. Until then, I think we should give each other grace.
We can be wrong about a lot of things while loving and serving God. Part of living is his gentle correction, which sometimes comes through another human with a different perspective.
I would adhere to roughly the same view. Faith in the person of Jesus is central, which is not very propositional. The bible clearly makes propositional truth claims. However, even though Scripture is infallible, we are fallible. The best we can do is be faithful to Jesus in the beliefs we hold. I attend a church that I disagree with on many propositions, but I genuinely believe the people are trying to be faithful to Christ and God's word. Who am I to demand they shift from their faithfully held beliefs?
God bless your heart. We need more like you
Well said!!! I am a Global Methodist with a strong respect for Orthodoxy (Wesleyan theology has some interesting crossovers with the East that are not normal for Western churches), and I fully expect to learn in the next life about areas where I'm wrong. I enjoy learning, so this isn't as much of a scary prospect for me as an interesting and exciting one. :-)
@@nerysghemor5781Hey! I'm eastern orthodox and I was considering to read something from Wesley, but I can't find out what's his "magnum opus". Is there any book from him that you would recommend as an introduction to understanding his theology? (I want to read directly from him, not some biography)
@@jonaszswietomierz8017 I would have to look into that to find the titles. What I would suggest as a keyword is what Methodists refer to as entire sanctification. It’s nearly identical to theosis.
I am proud to be stage 1 Progressive. The church has hurt people in the past and present, and it should stop. We are supposed to walk in love. At the same time, there needs to be a balance in following the Word. I do love the ending statement. We need to focus on what Christ is telling us
Based
People who believed in Jesus. A religion used God to kill people to torture people to persecute people because they don't believe the same as them they ruled the Earth like they have the authority of God
Jesus never told us to kill torture or persecute people.
The people that did it didn't understood and didn't do what Jesus said
“But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matthew 5:43-44).
Jesus is God so he is eternal so he never changed. So we don't have to reform or change Christianity but to return to Jesus. A hell lot of denominations do things different of the Bible others interpret the Bible in their own way. Some have the audacity to add teachings that is absolutely against what the Bible says and promote it and teach it to others
and have the audacity to call themselves the only one true church
I believe the true Church of Christ is thoses who Jesus himself know and approve of.
Matthew 7:13-14 NKJV
“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
Absolutely we need to focus on what Christ we can still hate a sin and not want people be killed because they do it. sexual love that is not between a woman and man is a sin and an abomination. But this don't mean we should hate them. Why whould people hate them but don't hate lying people drunkards cussing people or unbelievers for example.
Jesus forgave an adulterous why should i condemn a gay then ?
John 8
3Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, 4they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. 5Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” 6This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.
7So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” 8And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”
11She said, “No one, Lord.”
And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”
12Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”
but be sure that being gay is a sin Paul wrote about this
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
So you're not christian at all? Got it.
Yes, that's about where I'm at. I'm an Episcopalian. I'm LGBT and a Democrat. I don't want the pride flag in church, and I want to talk about Jesus and the Gospel. I can watch MSNBC the other six mornings of the week.
I think it might be a mistake to mix a spectrum of opinions with a spectrum of tolerance. You can have a very narrow tolerance that doesn't copy the traditional views. But it's a complicated topic and for a short video, great job!
He thinks people on the right want Christianity to be exclusive. That’s absurd. I mean I don’t talk to people on the right more than my leftist friends. But I’m on the right and I know what Christianity is and what’s it’s not and it’s not exclusive.
Always a treat when Redeemed Zoomer uploads
I like your profile picture 💪🏻
Yeah it's great for a laugh
@@ViennaSteeler Turn to God ♥ do not learn on your own intuition
@@TheMasterPlayer-uo6ms "don't think for yourself"
Lol alright buddy
@@ViennaSteelerif you aren't a Christian then why even answer another Christians comment lol
6:50
I genuinely do not recall a time I’ve laughed as hard as seeing that botched “acktshyuwally”. 😂
Same. I now know not to drink anything while I’m watching his videos, lol
Bot
Curious as to whether women in ministry is the best example for your degrees of conservatism. I know many churches that will hold to degree 2 and 3 but have no issue with women in ministry leadership or pastoral roles.
Thank you so so much for these videos. I am learning so much. 🎉🎉🎉🎉
I think Jesus would be above the spectrum saying “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."😢
Agreed...I'm a 0.5 progressive (not going any further left than that) and I actually look forward to finding out in the next life where I am wrong. I realize I don't know or understand everything and I think being open to learning and correction is good. From Scripture it seems that when a person was open to learning and correction when they didn't have it all right, Jesus was very kind in how he educated them, so I think that would be a positive conversation, not a negative one. (Think of the Samaritan woman, who had many things wrong theologically but showed openness to Him. Same with the eunuch who wanted to learn but didn't see the full meaning of the Scriptures on his own. That's how I hope the interaction will be when I get to Heaven. :-) )
Great comment !
God bless 🙏⭐️
@@nerysghemor5781 As a 0.5 - 1.5 conservative: Amen, I agree with you also. We all have fallible minds due to our sin nature so glory be to The Lord for being good to us. God Jesus bless you, fellow brother or sister in Christ! :)
At this point why not forgive everyone lol? If you believe in hell then it is certain that not everyone can be forgiven. And salvation is conditional on the basis of your faith, you must have a Christian faith. You cannot be both Christian and universalist. It matters where on the scale you are.
@@nerysghemor5781Same
It's hard to know where I am on this spectrum because I'm a little bit of many things on each side. My system shares a lot of different views from a universalist Christian who doesn't fit your video description and a strict conservative who shares some liberal beliefs about the world, and there were some things missing here as well imo but overall thanks for the presentation, I hope it helps others. The most important thing imo is the end point you made about Jesus, and that people know they don't have to fall into a specific category.
In what ways do you share ideals with universalists? And yes it does matter, salvation is conditional on your faith.
@@juansolo3227 look it up and you'll see descriptions of it, there are good examples. Also what? I'm a bit confused of what you're saying but it was a month ago so I'm not sure I have the right to answer anyway lol
@@LoveInUnreality that’s super fair. 😂I’m gonna be honest, I am coming back a month later to your response too and I don’t remember much either lol. I may have wanted to know whether or not you were a universalist yourself and where your beliefs aligned with the universalist I guess. You mentioned you had views that aligned with a universalist and a strict conservative and so I was most likely intrigued by that I guess. You also said it doesn’t matter what categories a person falls in, that probably ticked something off in my head at the time cause you brought that up in the same paragraph as universalism.
@@juansolo3227 ohh well I was also talking about my system as in, multiple people living in one head, some are conservatives some aren't at all. I think I worded it in a way it didn't make as much sense. Honestly I'm not very good at talking about stuff like this as I'm not super knowledgeable on the terms and don't really care tbh. I just try to fit into what I think best describes me moment by moment lol
Thanks for replying anyway tho
@@LoveInUnreality fair enough, talking is hard. I get that, I’m dyslexic and also don’t sleep so I don’t sound the most eloquent when I speak to my friends at times.
I do feel odded out by your phrasing and feel compelled to ask. I’m not quite sure what you mean by, “multiple people in one head.” What do you mean by that?
Now I'm atheist and come from a LGBTQ household. I just found your channel and tbh I've already gained so much respect for you as you're incredibly informative and thoughtful.
What does it mean to be from a LGBT household ? Are you adopted from a gay couple ? Or has your father later in life became gay or trans ? Or does your mother identify as your father and your father identity as your mother ?
@@matheuscaneta1194 most likely the parents dont discriminate on lgbtq and embrace/allow it in their household
Engaging with the spectrum of Christian beliefs, it's fascinating to see how theological perspectives evolve. From conservative Christians emphasizing biblical inerrancy to progressive Christians challenging traditional views, the landscape is diverse. The discussion often centers around the role of women in ministry, biblical authority, and interpretations of creation. It's crucial to approach these differences with respect, recognizing that beliefs are nuanced and shaped by various factors. Ultimately, the question arises: Where would Jesus stand in this complex theological landscape?
I don't think Jesus has a body count, so I'd assume the answer to "where would he stand" is "against the conquest and violence the church has caused since his passing"
Jesus used his position to argue for social justice but as far as I know he didnt deny scripture so he is a progressive 2
Jesus is God so he numbered the live of all living beings. So his body count is 1000 quadrillion
Jesus was very progressive at his time. It's undeniable that he was a social justice warrior himself. That's all I could say. Tbh, I wonder where'd he'd stand too. I feel like he'd hate what most conservative Christians nowadays are doing the same way he'd hate what most liberal Christians are doing. I feel like Jesus was he's own person, like, independent perhaps? He wouldn't necessarily subscribe to one belief or the other. He's like, a middle man.
As someone who is currently on the path to ministry, I often find myself more conflicted by some of these divisions than I would be if I were simply interested in remaining part of the laity. It's one thing to attend a church in which you disagree with some of their theological positions but it's another to be the pastor in a denomination with which you disagree. I would love to know how to best approach these kinds of issues as a member of the clergy.
Act faithfully with your clergy, while understanding that beliefs and other earthly machinations and categorizations of the intellect are only hindrances to be closer to God.
Redeemed Zoomer is just 'S' tier. Great youtuber. Great Niche-tuber. Great Christ-tuber. Love pulling out a RZ video when I'm having religious conversations with people.
Good video. There's a church near me that does exactly what you outlined in stage 2. They have interesting stuff on their sign outside, supporting all sorts of worldly issues like the starbucks unions or stuff like "its the bi-ble not the hetero-ble"
The difference between a conservative Christian and a liberal "Christian" is that the conservative one doesn't have to rip entire sections out of his Bible to make his theology work.
Ethnonationalists do rip out sections of their bible to make their theology work.
@zfloyd1627 does that even exist in the USA? The only Ethnonationalists I ever hear of are those black liberation movement but 1) they are too small in number to have a significant impact and 2) usually Muslims so I doubt they have any use for a Bible of any kind 😄
Yo liberals “non binanarys should be priests” me wondering what to call them priest of priestess
Genesis 1:27 "Male and female, He created them."
He didnt create 'non-binary' people.. we did.
priest. obviously. that's a really dumb comment, in almost every language you default to the masculine if you don't know the specific gendered word or if you don't know the subjects gender. you're so caught up in your own fairy tales of "owning" liberals that you forgot to consider that almost no one cares
🅱️riests
I mean.... You could just ask them but I'm sure that is difficult for you.😂
@@mustachemac5229Not difficult, impossible. That’s because there is no such thing as a non-binary priest.
Great video! But I think conservative 3 and 4 should be switched. Also, I'd like to humbly request a "History of King David, I guess" You style makes sharing these topics with my kids very accessible.
As a young earth creationist I think other denominations can be saved so they shouldn't switch
No way, denominational exclusion is far more extreme than youn-gearth Creationism. Very, VERY few Baptists will say that orthodox-practicing Methodists, Lutherans, and so on are damned. More will say that Catholics or even Orthodox are damned, but that's largely due to a lack of understanding of the Church's approach to things like papist Infusion versus Protestant Imputation, or the role of intercession of the saints. All of them will say that Progressive """""Christians""""" are damned because they loathe the Bible and its teachings, dismissing them as obsolete, bigoted, or even immoral.
To say that your denomination is the only right one, or a set of only right ones, is a rejection of Jesus' teachings of one Holy, Universal, and Apostolic Church, as well as the Nicene Creed's declaration of the same. Ecumenicalism is the correct approach. Denominations exist because men disagree on open-handed doctrines like the nature of the Lord's Supper, Infusion versus Imputation, the organizational structure of the Holy Orders (Oversees, Deacons, and Elders), while agreeing on absolute Truths (e.g. Jesus is God, Jesus is the only way to Salvation, Jesus' Resurrection and Virgin Birth), and so on.
I firmly believe that Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestant Christians that actually believe in the Word of God and practice its Truths accordingly are Christian and will see one-another in Heaven.
I'd say that >70% of exerising protestants are creationists.
@@Robin-sf3gk
Creationism is the belief that the universe, and all in it, including life itself, is the handiwork of God and that He directed, orchestrated, and directly worked to make it at His pleasure and His discretion.
That's it.
If you believe the universe, let alone life, is an accident, you deny God the credit for the works of His Hands. That denial damns you, because it denies the WHO and the WHY. The HOW is open-handed (I believe evolutionary biology is God's means), but the WHO and WHY are non-negotiable.
@@Robin-sf3gkthat’s an extreme take
Thank you zoomer for helping making this video it helped me see how Theologically liberal I have become I'm on my way to fix this way of thought
Really love the end "where would Jesus be" because that is correct! When we are lost, look to the cross, not the world. Think of the Lord and not our own thoughts nor understanding. Appreciate this truly ♡
As someone who falls slightly to progressivism, I still like the way you explained both sides. I agree with the Stages vs Degree distinction since it kind of helps show how willing/likely each side is going to change their views. Only criticism would be that you spent more time explaining the progressive side and their flaws than the conservative side (I don't mean in terms of bias, I mean you didn't go too far into depth about each degree of conservatism like you did stages of liberalism). All in All a good and relevant video.
That’s just because the degrees are more broad in scope and separated, whereas progressivism is just one slippery slope into damnation. He _can’t_ get more specific for the degrees or he’d risk losing truthful accuracy, whereas progressivism is always the same and so can be specified.
@@disguisedcentennial835 Seems like you missed the entire point of the video.
@@AatamiFin I have no clue what you think the point of this video was lol
@@disguisedcentennial835 There are actually some of us who fall slightly on the progressive side who...well, didn't progress. By this scale I would fall at 0.5 and I actually do have clear lines not just on the right, but also on the left that I won't cross.
@@disguisedcentennial835Someone has a clear bias
It’s weird, when I gave my life to Jesus, I kinda started off as a stage one progressive Christian, and then some how by some miracle, went the completely opposite direction 💯😂💯💯💯
That's because you actually became a Christian and wanted to obey God.
me too actually
Same here. I think many younger Christians start off this way due to how politics have become so religious. The left is very good at proselytizing by manipulating human empathy.
Welcome to the club. We love Jesus too. It’s great. He tells you to do stuff and you do it.
@@redeemedzoomer6053hey man, great videos. Fellow Zoomer here. If you have trouble reading the word of God, check out podcasts. The one I use is called the Bible in a year. (Yes I know you’re a Presbyterian and you’re Catholic, I think you and I are in the same boat). It’s an extremely easy way to swallow the entire (Catholic) Bible in one year. If you drive for more than 2.5 hours/week, you can probably listen to the entire Bible in 1 year. I’m on my 4th lap now. Great stuff man. Keep it up.
"Your worry is Where would Jesus be" Man that hit for anyone on both sides XD
I'm basically degree one specifically because in isolation I think there's room to debate but in practice it comes with a heap of strings attached.
Unfortunately, it's easy to not ask that last question and insert one's personal biases as doctrine.
Ever since I returned to Christianity I've been trying to be as middle grounded as possible when it comes to these type of issues. I think regardless of who you are, as long as your belief in Christ is genuine, you are a Christian, full stop.
Same
I understand your point it lacks one thing. If you want believe in the Genuine Christ you are a Christian. That's why we have the Bible to learn about Him. I say this because I've known and met people that say they believe in Jesus Christ and are sincere when they say it but they believe in a different Jesus ie saying that He isn't God. He is God. People can be sincere and sincerely wrong at the same time. I'm glad you returned to Christianity please dig deep into God's word. Jesus is Truth. Eager for your progress in the gospel
@@Sirjwinsalot but how would someone have genuine belief in Jesus and then claim he's not God, it's very clear that the Bible says He is.
@@crazyand2099 Check out Arianism. It's essentially an old heresy that says Jesus is a created being, although the highest of the created order.
@@crazyand2099 ”Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’“
Matthew 7:22-23 NASB1995
I’d recommend a book like Dangerous Jesus which deals with social Justice from a conservative Christian perspective
That just comes down to following both of the great commandments.
Religion is dangerous!
The law can really be summed up in 2 words anyways so the theology or answer your looking for is already in scripture but getting a modern example isn’t a bad thing but tbh if Christian’s lived like Christ(most of us) the world would be far far better..
Thank you for making all the videos you do.
I love that last sentence. powerful!
Bro I'm an ethnonationalist, that doesn't mean I dislike other Christian people groups. That only means that you honor your ancestors and respect what they went through, and don't want to see it all thrown in the garbage. Europe is white and Christian.
That means you like classical music right?
@@AleskyMaxomovishPeshkov Yeah sure, why?
@@CatholicSoldierX Oh because I assumed you may one of those people who want to be proud of their race and heritage (white people I mean) but they still enjoy non-white music like hip-hop (don't consider it music) and can't stand actual European music
@@AleskyMaxomovishPeshkov I never met someone like that, that sounds more like a racist liberal to be honest. Most of hip-hop is indeed very tasteless.
@@CatholicSoldierX My uncle claimed he confronted and beat up a bunch of so called white supremacists who were listening to rap music. He said according to them their justification for that was because they thought black people were meant to entertain white people. That does kind of sound like the white Southern slave owners actually
as a christian in my opinion u cant call yourself christian at stage 3 progressive
Anywhere near that is out of bounds. Either you believe the core tenants of Christianity and take it seriously or don’t believe it at all. Granted some take the expression of that way too strictly to where it’s legalism and not actually Christianity (far conservative side), but if you don’t believe Jesus is the Son of God who died and rose again for humanity, that you can know him personally, and that he is the only way to God, then you’re not a Christian. It’s either that or nothing.
You can’t be a universalist and a Christian
Idk if i agree with you in everythihg theologically but i admire you for learning all this and putting it out there. Ur awesome. U remind me of me if i wasnt too lazy to make a youtube channel.
The fact that he could create informative videos while using MS Paint is astonishing! Great job Zoomer.
From: A redeemed millenial
The YEC thing isn't a marker of conservatism so much as biblical education. Many conservative reformed theologians are not YEC, despite being champions of inerrancy. Inerrancy is about trust; YEC is about interpretation. Never confuse interpretation with trust.
It could be said that certain interpretations are more traditional, such as compatibilism (moderate Calvinism), eternal conscious torment or barring women from leading positions of ministry, which have been held by a majority of bible-believing Christian scholars throughout the majority of the last 2000 years. But YEC is not one of those positions. The early church writers were split on it, and from there the church saw much allegorization, and from there much of Christendom was not YEC until the movement really started taking over layman evangelicalism in America in about the 20th century. It's one of various views held on Genesis throughout church history and should not be a test of orthodoxy.
EDIT: Also, inerrancy has been around for much longer than a reaction to liberal Christianity. It was there in the first five centuries. The idea that it's a more recent belief is a myth.
Really enjoyable video though. 😊
now imagine how many times throughout the history this exact situation happened, where changes were made according to what became socially accepted
though that would require perspective thinking and that's too much to ask for when the only thing important are affirmations
thats why i take even videos like this with a grain of salt. I dont fully recognize myself as a Christian so im no master of what goes on in christianity but its videos like this that do it for me. He clearly holds a lot of ill feelings towards more progressive churches despite trying to appear unbiased. Not saying he cant have those feelings but when your entire religion depends on loving your neighbor and then you have people like this everywhere that clearly dont love their neighbor, its hard to take seriously. Its why i left the church, no respect amongst any of them
@@Samookelybrother let me tell you. Jesus thought us to love everyone but he didn’t thought us to love sin. The people going towards the progressive side of Christianity are living in sin and encouraging sin. Like it is clearly stated that being homosexual is a sin. So for a church to tell it is Allright is just simply telling lies so we as Christian’s need to stop this and teaching people how God wants us to life. Idk the verse by head but you remember Jesus seeing people selling stuff in the synagogue and He goes in and makes everyone leave? He didn’t hate those people He just showed you that sin won’t be accepted. May God bless you my friend and turn you back to Him. If you have any questions to me feel free to ask me and I will gladly try to help you my friend
@@florianvriezen1656 i acknowledge that the bible calls it a sin, but having been raised in a very devout culture (whole family raised in dutch reformed) the only thing i didnt agree with was the treatment of these people that i saw around me. My gripe has always just been hypocrites, which i know are impossible to fully get rid of since we all have a tendency to be hypocritical ourselves. I just saw an extreme lack of accountability for other peoples mistreatment in cases where people were close to each other. Im a firm believer in keeping yourself and others around you accountable in a way that’s honest and not meant to harm, even if that means a good deal of self reflection. I agree that christian guilt is taking it too far though, getting stuck up on the past and doing too much self sacrifice isnt productive at all. (edit and i appreciate the offer thank you, I will consider)
@@florianvriezen1656
"The people going towards the progressive side of Christianity are living in sin and encouraging sin."
Well they would often say the exact same thing as you, so would you agree that the actual difference is in what different Christians call sin?
To my eyes, no one is endorsing sin, it's just that people have very different ideas of what is and isn't sin in the first place.
" Like it is clearly stated that being homosexual is a sin."
For example, this is a very clear statement, it is also a mistranslation.
Homosexuality is a modern example, it does not appear in the original language of the Bible nor in any other ancient document.
One could argue about what is or is not included in the meaning of the original text, but to give the impression of exactness in translation where the source text has a different connotation is an inaccurate or misleading translation.
How misleading is another question.
"So for a church to tell it is Allright is just simply telling lies"
I would say that this statement lacks empathy.
It's not a lie, people genuinely believe that homosexuality is not a sin.
I don't know exactly how we could guarantee a healthy dialogie with other people, but I have to imagine that assuming that they are lying about their own beliefs is not a good start.
"so we as Christian’s need to stop this and teaching people how God wants us to life."
They would say the same about you.
@@florianvriezen1656 Not loving sin doesn't mean being smug, snide and uncharitable to your opponents who engage in such. Which is what this whole video is about.
Wow! Your best one yet. From this point on, I'll be referring to myself as "Stage One Progressive."
I love the way you ended this ditty... "where would Jesus be."
Perfect!
To be at, for example, stage/degree 5, is it required to hold all of the other previous views? Would someone who holds partially to a view of a higher number just be placed at that point, or would they be placed in the same spot as something they may or may not believe? If someone holds beliefs on both sides of the spectrum, are the numbers averaged? If they are averaged, then is there any way to show that their beliefs are in any way different from someone who is simply closer to the middle of the spectrum?
These honestly aren't even purely critiques, and I'd expect you to probably have answers to at least a few that just weren't spelled out in the video, but I find the system interesting so wanted to try and find them out.
I would count myself in the first degree of christian conservatism even though I am far right on the political spectrum.
This would show how religion would differ from politics.
Respect my fellow sigma
@@vicsterrling1294 haha thank you for your respect but I am an alpha male so it’s better to call me alpha than sigma
Far right, as in ultra capitalism reactionary? May God change your heart, both capitalism and socialism are inherently sinful economics
@@maxzation I’m not capitalist, I’m authoritarian far right, capitalism is libertarian. I don’t wanna express my economic views but I’m definitely not socialist nor capitalist
@@theheroboy1i think you are socialist, that starts with "national" 😏
Switch degree one and two around, and I think you have it. For example, it is more likely that one will accept female pastors who affirm inerrancy, but not accept someone who denies inerrancy. However, it also depends on whether or not the ranking is completely linear.
To believe that the Bible is infallible and is truly the word of God directly leads to the conclusion that there should be no female pastors.
The conclusion of this video is a good indicator in where should we be in our faith. Politics is important yes but let it not take over our faith 😊
The rainbow colors on the left is a nice touch... also that the progressive side is on the 'left' nice touch as well
The thing with inerrancy I think is language. The Reformation partly occurred partly out of translations of the bible. Using repentance as an example, the Latin i.e. Catholic translation had the phrase "pay penance" while the earlier Greek translation had the phrase "repent" meaning two totally different things and ideas.
Such an amazing video - succinct, accurate, and thoughtful. Great job as always, RZ!
I think the “0 divide” is views concerning divorce more so than female preachers.
The orthodox logo with a beard in the 4th degree of denominational exclusivism is actually hilarious 😂
You should add in the description of the sources you use for your videos. I find it would be useful for your viewers to have those resources.
This was a pretty good video, and your explanations were pretty fair for both extremes.
I've been beginning to read Tim Keller's book "The Prodigal God" that talks about the Parable of the Prodigal Son, and this video sort of reminds me both about the younger and elder brother, and how both reflect two far extremes (one is outright rebellion, and other is cold self-righteousness/religiosity). We should make sure that we do our best to obey the Lord because of what Jesus did for us, but not become self-righteous or condescending to others.
What is also interesting is that these two extremes also appear in the two main groups Jesus had theological debates with during his ministry: the Sadduces were theologically liberal in that they ignored all scripture besides the Thora and even denied the afterlife. The Pharisees on the other hand were the self-righteous legalists. There is this awesome episode recounted in Mark 12, Matthew 22 and Luke 20 were our Lord refutes both of the factions nonsense back to back.
@@duplodragon That is a good point.
Very well said
I really like this slide. I’m a 1/2 Conservative. I am a member of a church that has 2 or 3 ordained women, a few teaching pastors, and I frequent one that has no women pastors, I don’t think churches that do makes them a false church. Thanks Zoomer. 😎
What if I see myself in a lot of these different stages/degrees? Does that put me at zero?
No, i think its because, let's say, im at one for progressive, and yet i believe in some stuff in 1 conservative, it will still make me 1 progressive because of the fact that conservative requires that i dont belive in progressive stuff
I think conservative degrees 1 and 2 should be switched. There are plenty of people who ardently defend inerrancy, but they've been bitten by the egalitarian bug. Other than that, pretty solid explanation, I think.
I mean any set of diverse positions on a general topic put in a form of a bimodal spectrum is gonna be simplified the heck out of so there's so much things that could be moved around and still kinda make sense, right?
@PvlmVIsHere I totally agree. I could nit pick a few other things but I understand that it is a very generalized video. But in my experience, I think there are more people who affirm inerrancy and female pastors than people who reject inerrancy and female pastors. If you reject inerrancy, then you dont really have any reason to reject female pastors imo. Of course, there is plenty of overlap, but generally I think this is true.
But since zoomer comes from the mainline, I can understand why he set it this way because female pastors are far more common than the more conservative denominations.
@@Labrador_Productions1 Rejecting inerrancy means that you allow the Bible to be wrong about things that don't really matter to the main purposes of the Bible. Teaching about how to run a church is unlikely to fall into that category - arguments for allowing female pastors while still following the Bible generally claim that those instructions were given to a particular church in a particular context, and while the underlying principle still applies to us today, obedience to that principle looks very different for us than it did for them. Whether the argument succeeds is a different matter, but it doesn't have much to do with the truth or falsity of biblical inerrancy.
Thought the same thing.
Pretty great video! Although it's okay for people to think it's a bit oversimplified, I believe you've explained it nicely the way you can❤️
I think something very important to remember as well, the earliest churches, the ones who the epistles were wrote to, had doctrinal errors that Paul, Peter, James and Timothy had to correct; but they still considered them beloved brothers. This isn’t an excuse for those churches to keep living in those errors, but for us to be gracious toward them
I’m a 2 on the conservative side but still believe that the idea of women not being allowed to teach does not come from Jesus but from man
Im probably a 2nd degree conservative Christian. As a biochemist I understand that evolution is real, and intelligent design seems reasonable to me. I also understand there is a lot of historical evidence that Christ exists and rose from the dead, and I put my faith in Him. I also realise that today we are fighting a spiritual war. Funny think is I used to be a cynnical atheist 4-5 years ago.
Glad you have been saved
I think that evolution as a concept is real but not radical evolution like we used to be apes. I dont even believe darwin believed that at the end of his life.
@@HaydenFPlaysVODS
We are still apes and Darwin never denounced evolution and was active in his congregation throughout his life.
@@HaydenFPlaysVODS evolution doesn't claim we used to be apes, please do more research
i'm exactly the same. ex-atheist too, thank God
Woke Christianity is a nightmare. Utterly compromised.
Some of there doctrines lead to apostasy, especially Universalism, Unitarianism, and biblical errency
That's homophobic
@@peopleskingdomofwolcottiagood
The "Affirmation Gospel" is replacing the "Prosperity Gospel" but don't worry, it won't be here forever
@peopleskingdomofwolcottia
Whoops! Oh well. Looks like I made some Sinners angry! What will I ever do!?
I developed a similar model. It’s good to see that I hover right about center to center right.
I think this topic is a little more complicated than the video does justice. I personally, know multiple people who would technically be both progressive and conservative by this scale.
For example: one is young-earth creationist yet also LGBTQ affirming, one believes the bible is inerrant yet also believes women can be pastors... you get the idea. I think many of these beliefs are oddly somewhat independent of each other. People often hold both very progressive and very conservative ideas at the same time, so maybe a more accurate title of the video would be "Liberal vs Conservative Christian Beliefs explained." Nonetheless, I really enjoyed the video and found it helpful. Thank you for maintaining a neutral delivery.
For context: I am an atheist/agnostic ex Seventh-Day Adventist (a generally conservative denomination), who is exploring other religions/denominations/worldviews/etc. Most of these people (including the two examples) are SDA.
There are plenty of self-described Christian sects/denominations that depart greatly from the Nicene Creed in their beliefs and would by no means be described as progressive in their doctrines (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons).
Not Christians
Aren't they heritics in the literal sense?
Indeed, we Jehovah's Witnesses are far more dedicated to a strict, literal understanding of the Bible than the Catholic church or most protestants, and according to at least one survey are THE MOST anti abortion denomination, however, we do not accept the Trinity, because its not in the Bible but rather a later accretion, and are Annihilationist, since that seems to be what the Bible teaches, Ecclesiastes 9:4-6, Psalm 6:5 and so on.
However, if you start from the point of believing the Bible DOES teach the Trinity, you need to really doubt the Bible to doubt the Trinity. The Unitarians had that problem, though there are still Bible believing Unitarians, just not in the UU.
Those people worship something other than the Christian God.
@@clpfox470I think that mormons are in a gray area since they truly believe that God came to America or smthing and yada yada
Wait I have a question
Isn't YEC mostly a recent protestant thing. I have never met an Orthodox or Catholic priest who affirms YEC.
Its more complicated.
It was common back in the day before people actually knew the science between evolution and geology, but since than no official Catholic statements said that only young Earch creation is acceptable, some stating explicitly that evolution is acceptable. Idk about Orthodox situation since Orthodox Church is way more decentralized so I believe there is no "official" stance on that matter.
YEC has been the position of the Church since its inception, only changing around the time of the enlightenment. People like augustine denied the literal view of genesis 1, but because he believed the universe was younger, not older
YEC was the universal view of the church until Charles Lyell and Higher Criticism in mid late 19th century
I am a Catholic and I have settled on intelligent design. Most people in the intelligent design world are either old earth creationists or theological evolutionists, which honestly overlap greatly. This is basically me after reading incessantly on the issue.
I don't really understand you sometimes, more when you have told about conservative. (i guess, i am conservative on a first stage) But yes, somewhere you literally right. Your video inspires me. Thank you for your content 🙌
I have always felt that I'm a "fence-rider," and no, not necessarily the Revelations 3:15-16 type Christian, but I have always found myself seeking balance and rationality. Watching this video really helped me confirm where I am in the philosophical / theological part of my identity, seeing truths and discrepancies in many denominations / doctrines. I equally see dangers on both sides that I believe hinder God's ultimate plan for the Church in this era. While compromising your beliefs is never the answer, I think taking the time to go back to what the absolutes are can really help all Christians (regardless of background) see what's most important: We are all sinners that fall short of God's glorious standard; Salvation is received (through the gift of Jesus' holy sacrifice), not earned; We are called to love (regardless of disagreements); This fallen Earth is just temporary, for greater, more eternal things are yet to come...
Why does it have to premier so early 😭
Well done! A few comments I might add:
1. If I had to draw a line on where Christianity ends, it would be 3-stage Liberalism, because if you aren't basing your faith on the Bible, then on what do you base your faith?
2. If I had to put myself anywhere, it would be 2nd degree Conservatism, because if the Bible isn't inerrant, you can make it say whatever you want to say, which is a very dangerous form of Hermeneutics called "Eisegesis."
3. I like how you distinguished the "Religious spectrum" per se from the Political spectrum. I am economically Left-leaning, because those are the ones that help the poor. So I guess you could say that I'm politically moderate.
I'd think the 'inerrant' part mostly has to do with mistranslations and the like. After all, the original language wasn't English, and surely there are some concepts in the original language that can't be easily explained in English.
@@MedK001 I agree. "Inerrant" simply means it was without error the original language.
I'm pretty sure "Only Catholics are saved" is not a teaching in the Catholic Church. There are some who believe that, and others who believe that salvation can be found outside the church, it can just be more difficult with more temptations.
As an ethnonationalist, that aspect of myself does not really influence my religious beliefs. I dont see how it is part of Degree 5 when ethnonationalism isn't religious for most of us.
It's like saying "and here at degree 4 we have the MAGA conservatives..."
True, he himself said it wasn't about politics
I grew up in a family with Catholic elders (great-grandparents and grandmother). I was a Christian for like 3 months when I was 6 years old because the Catholic school I attended made us go through catechesis and religious classes. Since none of what I was taught was actively enforced by my family nor my peers, my own analysis made me realize how little sense it made and stopped believing, without understanding that religion is a social construct, of course. Still, I was still emotionally attached to the idea of Jesus and God. Like, I wanted Jesus and I to be best friends and I still prayed to God every night asking for everyone in the world to be well. I'd say things like "If you exist, which I hope you do, please allow everyone to be happy", this all despite, at a rational level, understanding that God didn't exist. It just gave me emotional comfort and warmth.
As time passed, I eventually talked to the people in my life about it and became agnostic but atheistic regarding anthropocentric religions (which I am still, but even the agnostic part is fading off). It's weird because even though that was the case, I still appreciated prayer sessions and the little sermons we were part of every cold morning before class began at school more than my actually Christian peers. It's funny in the context of this video because essentially all the verses they recited were about social justice, especially being selfless. I'm not entirely sure if religion itself is good or bad for society as a whole and its individuals, but I'm leaning towards "it shouldn't exist because staunch belief in something that is essentially myth is inherently irrational and tends to damage critical thinking", but I'm not sure.
So yeah, despite me not believing a single thing about the Biblical canon, I still feel some sort of attachment to Catholicism. I am attached to Catholic customs, iconography, places of worship, etc. They make me feel warm and comfortable and at peace. They make me feel at home. I love to just casually enter churches and stay there for a while. They're beautiful. I'm not Catholic, but I still feel attachment to it and its cultural manifestations. It's odd because I'd love to be a Catholic, but I just don't believe in religion at all. Is there a specific term for this? What can I do about it? :o
Prayer, even if it feels like you are not heard by god, is the best way to him
I could go on about the rationality of Christianity, and how it is perfectly compatible with our understanding of the universe, but I would just recomend prayer.
Funnily enough, a direct translation from Hebrew does seem to actually support evolution being used to create man. Metatron has a good video on Adam and Eve, where Adam is referred to as The Adam, as if Adam was one of a pre-existing species.
@@mysteriousstranger5873 Exactly. It's called Divine-Guided Evolution. Whatever primate/pre-human creature existed, God gave it the type of rational soul that led to our innate morality and advanced rational consciousness we have today. Considered like "Patient Zero" of humans is what you'd evolutionary refer to Adam and Eve. Biblically supported incest for the last resort of the survival of the species if there were no more humans. Completely in line with how natural evolution is.
I went through this phase for a while and now I want to become a Catholic. It is a sign that is calling to convert. Stay on that track even if it requires years which it did for me.
I wanted to touch on your last question and maybe spark a conversation I haven't seen yet in the comments:
I feel like I have some reason to believe that, going by the ways you have described everything, that Jesus would be somewhere in between 2nd and 3rd stage conservative. My best argument for that is simply because I just read through the entire Bible my first time, and based on the gospels and scripture of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, it kind of doesn't really fit into anything else by my best guess. But, I also put myself into that category, so maybe it's also an open ended question where answers depends on one's own fit into this spectrum?
It is interesting, and it really is difficult huh, cause every denomination, whilst they agree* with the Nicene Creed, have their own varying interpretations of Christ, big or small. For example, Catholics belief that Jesus literally turned his body and blood into bread and wine (that process is called transubstantiation), and Protestants belief it’s a metaphor. Depending on which interpretation you accept, Jesus will be thought of by each side as more Liberal or Conservative.
@@traumatizedcritic8679 Odds are he'll agree with George Washington and tell us to not have political parties.
Honestly, I think ethnonationalism is on an entirely different axis than most of the other traits discussed in this video. It's entirely possible to have universalist ethnonationists that think that religion is fake but useful in how it inspires social cohesion. A lot of them convert to Norse paganism as a result.
Actually all liberal and conservative Christians 100 years ago would have been "ethnonationalist".
I cant tell if the dislike ratio is from conservatives comparing themselves to other conservatives, progressives comparing themselves to other progressives, or conservatives and progressives comparing to each other.
Probably all three
1:23
What about the top right box . What's supposed to be filled in there ?
They like the lore but dont believe in it.
@@someguy7819like me
You can be Liberal AND Conservative in the way you have it laid out. The Monsignore I remember best at my church was Liberal 2, Conservative 1-2.
Liberal and conservatism isn't nessessarily an either or situation ya can take elements from both sides, be liberal about some things and conservative on others, for instance I'm liberal on most social and economic issues but generally side with conservatives when it comes to matters of property and gun rights aswell as the general values that conservatives push such as the value of personal discipline and work ethic, something I greatly wish that my liberal to left leaning friends would would take more seriously and stop dismissing as " harmful capitalist work culture"
Bro compared atheists to facists💀
It's liberal to say drinking isn't a sin in Christianity anymore. It's liberal to say that LGBT people should come to church. It's liberal to say that God elects anymore. I don't think you've been around enough different people
Even though I’m Roman Catholic I still support the local churches except the liberals
*The Pope would be extremely disappointed.*
@@MatthewPatel-hx4ci Nah the current pope is fine with it
I used to be a degree 4 conservative, but now I’m a degree 1. There’s one exception… I still believed in YEC while I didn’t believe in inerrancy.
what is YEC (I see myself also deg 1 conservative)
ah nvm Young Earth Creationism, got it
Fair enough, do you think YEC is an essential belief though?
@@matnic_6623Either way it is wrong
You think Catholics are saved?
The ending was a real mic drop moment there
5:34 good job bro, you projected the side your don't agree with as the soy wojak, and you made the side you agree with the Chad, good job, you won the imaginary argument, 11/10