Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is a good point here. According to the Wikipedia:
Christian fundamentalism began in the late 19th- and early 20th-century among British and American Protestants
Also, as the article discusses the roots of fundamentalism:
A third stream was Princeton Theology, which responded to higher criticism of the Bible by developing from the 1840s to 1920 the doctrine of inerrancy. This doctrine, also called biblical inerrancy, stated that the Bible was divinely inspired, religiously authoritative, and without error
So although we are often led to believe that fundamentalist belief in biblical inerrancy is traditional Christianity, those are actually fairly recent developments.
I was taught that one of the "rallying cries" of the reformation was "Sola Scriptura." If that is true, holding to the bible as the final authority didn't start in the 19th or 20th century. Maybe modern fundamentalism has simply taken "Sola Scriptura" to the extreme, far beyond what the reformers intended.
Great a non-Catholic telling a Catholic how to be Catholic.
Listen to yourself grass hopper.
I never told anyone how to be a catholic. I simply expressed my questioning due to the post of some claiming to be catholic. I wonder why that strikes a nerve with you though. Usually when a question is raised the first to respond is the guilty party. This makes me wonder even more!
You know, I personally don't see any reason that you could not believe anything you want and be accepted by the catholic church. They have taken on the religion of so many over the years that it should not matter.
I never told anyone how to be a catholic. I simply expressed my questioning due to the post of some claiming to be catholic. I wonder why that strikes a nerve with you though. Usually when a question is raised the first to respond is the guilty party. This makes me wonder even more!
Now you have graduated from Straw Men into the art trolling.
It will not work. Try something else grass hopper.
So you don't believe the NT supports or even accepted slavery? That's quite a feat!! Also, you don't believe Paul's injunction for married women to "keep silent" in the church and ask their husbands at home?
If you don't believe those two things (mainly because they are accepting demeaning practices against some people) then you are showing growth in your morality that is God-given. And unless you can say without hesitation that slavery is wrong or that women cannot ever open their mouths in church (note that in the same letter of I Corinthians Paul either gave opposing views of that or someone edited his letter--and I believe the latter), then you have a changing view of morality from that expressed in the Bible.
For me, every verse of scripture without fail should be measured by the two things Jesus considered most important--to love the Lord our God with all our heart and mind and our neighbor as ourselves. And we keep the first by practicing the second. If there is the slightest doubt about anything we want to consider sin in other people we should err in favor of that second greatest commandment. In the end God will be the final judge as He is able to look at hearts whereas we only judge behavior and actions.
The prevailing practice of evangelical Christianity is to invade the lives of other people to force certain behavior. That's not what I see Jesus doing in the gospels. Changes were made by some because He gave them choices--and not everyone was happy with the choice He gave them ---but He never tried to force it upon them.
And there is not a single instance where Jesus spoke forcefully and with condemnation toward anyone except those who were the conservative believers of His day and age--and those with the most biblical knowledge--the Pharisees. Proof once again, that knowing the Bible is not living for Christ.
Slavery and women: I believe that slavery existed and that it was supported within the constructs of the society (ie Philemon), but, not that it was endorsed or commended by God ... then or today. Paul's injunction against women to "keep silent" in church was consistent with the cultural thinking of the day and intended to avoid the problems it was creating. Paul further clarified this in Gal. 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
I would agree that "Love the Lord and your Neighbor" are the primary test of the truth of one's Christianity and relationship with God - Scripture itself does not need to be 'tested,' as it is the testimony of God Himself ... and stands as a witness against all who deny God's ways.
?? - I presume you are talking about the Great Commission: Matt. 28:18-10 - 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
?? Or are you speaking of the choice in John 3:16 & John 3:18 and elsewhere: 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
Jesus: Spoke strongly against Scribes, Pharisees, Money Changers and many others who, "Honored Him with their lips, but, whose heart was far from Him." Are you suggesting that Jesus approved of Sin? He loved sinners, but, did not compromise or fall back when it came to insisting that they turn away from their sin.
Slavery and women: I believe that slavery existed and that it was supported within the constructs of the society (ie Philemon), but, not that it was endorsed or commended by God ... then or today. Paul's injunction against women to "keep silent" in church was consistent with the cultural thinking of the day and intended to avoid the problems it was creating. Paul further clarified this in Gal. 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
I would agree that "Love the Lord and your Neighbor" are the primary test of the truth of one's Christianity and relationship with God - Scripture itself does not need to be 'tested,' as it is the testimony of God Himself ... and stands as a witness against all who deny God's ways.
?? - I presume you are talking about the Great Commission: Matt. 28:18-10 - 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
?? Or are you speaking of the choice in John 3:16 & John 3:18 and elsewhere: 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
Jesus: Spoke strongly against Scribes, Pharisees, Money Changers and many others who, "Honored Him with their lips, but, whose heart was far from Him." Are you suggesting that Jesus approved of Sin? He loved sinners, but, did not compromise or fall back when it came to insisting that they turn away from their sin.
Ah, but Jesus didn't shy away from mingling with sinners nor showering them with love. Exactly the opposite of what evangelical churches teach and preach. Nor do evangelical churches stand up against social ills that have plagued our country, instead preferring in the last three decades to focus on homosexuality as ruining the country.
Martin Luther King once said, "The church at times has preserved that which is immoral and unethical. Called to combat social evils, it has remained silent behind stained glass windows, an echo rather than a voice, a taillight behind the Supreme Court rather than a headlight guiding men progressively and decisively to higher levels of understanding."
Your ideas regarding biblical views of slavery and women speaking in church are examples of how the church as an institution has followed, not how it has led. In every case it was individuals that called into question the "understanding" of scripture to move us forward to a more loving morality. The current vocal "Christian" leaders are yet engaged in another oppression this time of gay and lesbian individuals, who like women or people of color were born into their situation.
Our morality needs to grow more, and once more, it is too frequently agnostics, atheists, and the unchurched who are leading the way to express the kind of love Jesus expressed. After all, it is not what you believe, but how you act on what you believe that will make a difference to God. If I'm going to make a mistake, I want it be a mistake of loving, forgiving, and accepting, not finger-pointing when standing up for God. Based on what I see in the life of Jesus, He is far more likely to forgive me of any error in that than if I'm a finger-pointing Pharisee.
Where has the church stood on universal healthcare? Where has it stood on "three strikes and you're put away forever?" Where has it stood on allowing gays and lesbians in their congregations when divorcees and fornicators are welcomed? Where has it stood on the right of terminally ill people to choose to die with dignity rather than be forced into painful existence without hope, costly to both family and society? Where has it stood in demanding more government resources for children they don't want aborted being born into poor families? Where has it stood on the distribution of condoms and other birth control devices? Where has it stood in demanding wages and salaries be enough for men and women to live on rather than be pittance so that CEOs can receive millions in bonuses?
Again Martin Luther King, "In spite of the noble affirmations of Christianity, the church has often lagged behind in its concern for social justice and too often has been content to mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. It has often been so absorbed in a future good 'over yonder' that it forgets the present evils 'down here.'"
Jesus did not seek to overcome evil with evil. He overcame it with good. But that is far from the message of the evangelical church. It's focused completely on itself and its own interpretation of scripture rather than on what is best for all people equally. The earliest Christian community practiced true "communism," in the book of Acts. And supposedly God struck down two of the community who didn't see the altruism in that community (or preferred their greed).
As a "non-traditional" Christian, I believe we have responsibility toward everyone else--and that our political votes should reflect the good of other Americans over ourselves. But that isn't how evangelical churches, teach, preach, or practice their "faith" in God.
It is for exactly that reason I refer to the Roman Catholic Church as either the Roman Church or the Roman Catholic Church, never just the Catholic Church. When someone says to me Catholic Church, I ask them which one and if questioned remind them there are many of them, not just the one led by the Bishop of Rome.
The Roman church considers itself to the THE Catholic church and goes to great lengths to avoid saying 'Roman'. The others consider themselves Catholic but rarely say it.
I was taught that one of the "rallying cries" of the reformation was "Sola Scriptura." If that is true, holding to the bible as the final authority didn't start in the 19th or 20th century. Maybe modern fundamentalism has simply taken "Sola Scriptura" to the extreme, far beyond what the reformers intended.
I think these are really two separate issues. Sola Scriptura means the bible is the sole authority, as opposed to tradition and papal pronouncements. Biblical inerrancy has to do with how the bible is interpreted.Even if you believe in Sola Scriptura, you could choose to read it in its literal sense or an allegorical sense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
