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.
I don't really see fans of Joel Osteen as being radical.
By the same token, I bet most of them think Jesus was white. What OberonKing was referring to was the disparity between Christianity as self-defined from within its own tenets versus what it actually has become in practice.
and am nI am a proud Cherry Picker.
And am not a fan of blind faith...big believer in testing, as in, seeing is believing.
So long as you know that is what you are doing and are making sense of it (and of course there is a valid case for that), then I have nothing to argue about. It is those who revise the Bible and the religion to suit themselves and then claim that they are 'doing what it says' are just wrong, and if they pop up here saying so, they are are going to be called on it.
There is an important point that I think is getting lost here. There are at least two different flavors of "moderate believers", and they are very distinct.
First let me clarify something that also gets glossed over. A Christian fundamentalist does not describe how dogmatic someone is about their belief, it is a very specific flavor of Christianity that emerged during the mid 20th century. We should be very careful about using it as a catchall for dogmatic conservative believers...
So I see two types of moderates, those with moderate theology and those with moderate devotion or personal investment.
Some people are very devout and rigorous believers of a theology that does not demand a belief in Hell, the inspiration of scripture, or a literal 6 day creation. They don't necessarily hold the same political and social positions as theologically conservative believers, but that is not, as many fundamentalists would assert, because they are unlearned, lazy, or uncommitted. It is that their doctrine leads them to a different point. In addition to the examples on this forum, folks like Barry Lynn (UCC minister, former president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State) demonstrate that you can be devout and still "moderate".
The other type of moderate is the "cherry picker" or non-devout believer in a rigorous theology. This is the kind that Ozzy and others have sort of referred to. Someone who believes, for example, in the inerrancy of Scripture, but who is willing to "fudge" it if it doesn't feel right to them. In this case the underlying theology may or may not matter at all, they choose their group identity by tradition, family ties, politics, culture or proximity to the church, and then proceed to keep and discard whatever bits of that religious tradition they choose.
Where devout fundamentalist may have a point about the second category not being committed or being wish washy, I don't think it applies to the first category. There is a difference between being firmly committed to a moderate or liberal theology, and being halfheartedly committed to a conservative one.
-NoCapo
Yes. This term 'fundamentalist' has been quite fudged to mean some kind of fanatic extremist, willing to go to any length in the cause of what they believe. It happened, I think with conflating Islamic extremism with Islamic fundamentalism. Christian fundamentalism is very specific about literal interpretation of the Bible and adherence to what it says. This does not in itself lead to extremism.
I needn't go too deep into the tortuous claim of thinking that equated 'New' atheism with a kind of Fundamentalist/extremism, and the ones who used to accusation didn't go too deep into it either. They simply used the Atheist Jihaddist smear to beat us with.
No more so than practically any time in this history of Western Civilization, with the exception of the mid- to late-20th Century.
“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” - Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
That cuts both ways: Government is part of the secular world. Through most of our nation's history, those who considered themselves the most devout Christians eschewed public policy debates because it they considered it dirtying to their hands. It wasn't until the 1950s that Christian conservatives decided to change their tune and sought to use the offices of government to interfere with others living their own lives in accordance with their own beliefs.
Or so the story goes.
I think that's a good post. Right from the start, Christianity - like quite a few religions when they interacted with society - had to become political or have a political side. At one time it was who rules? King or Church? It was always an uneasy alliance. Now it's who governs the country - a secular government or a religious one? I think that Dr King was right. He was describing a gradual 'curve' towards a better ethical framework and a less religious -controlled one (though he might not have seen it like that). A religious government always seems to reverse that process or tries to.
I think that's a good post. Right from the start, Christianity - like quite a few religions when they interacted with society - had to become political or have a political side. At one time it was who rules? King or Church? It was always an uneasy alliance. Now it's who governs the country - a secular government or a religious one? I think that Dr King was right. He was describing a gradual 'curve' towards a better ethical framework and a less religious -controlled one (though he might not have seen it like that). A religious government always seems to reverse that process or tries to.
that's probably a comfortable fantasy for those who think getting rid of 'da evl xians n stuff' will usher in some great new era of 'rationalism' or something, but we already have experience with know the results of 'cultures' and political ideologies that have done that, and the historical record is much more miserable, oppressive, and deadly re 'atheists' and 'rationalists' dictating to the 'masses'.
It's like the so-called' rationalists' have never heard of scientists selling themselves out and lying about their 'research', or have been willing and enthusiastic technicians more than willing to solve 'problems' of mass extermination and many other fun 'rationalist' activities. Doesn't speak well when those who are claiming to be 'educated' seem to lack all kinds of knowledge in real life. There is nothing 'moral' about scientists or the fake 'Economics' theories so popular with them, either.
I'm not a 'moderate', I'm an agnostic who happens to admire Christianity and its 2,000 years of social revolution as a great and positive thing, much better than the alternatives, and it's clear by the historical record that only the utterly ignorant or sociopaths can deny its been so.
Straw man, poison well and ad hominem fallacies from the start. 3 for the price of 1.
that's probably a comfortable fantasy for those who think getting rid of 'da evl xians n stuff' will usher in some great new era of 'rationalism' or something, but we already have experience with know the results of 'cultures' and political ideologies that have done that, and the historical record is much more miserable, oppressive, and deadly re 'atheists' and 'rationalists' dictating to the 'masses'.
And there a straw man followed by the usual cüm hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OberonKing
It's like the so-called' rationalists' have never heard of scientists selling themselves out and lying about their 'research', or have been willing and enthusiastic technicians more than willing to solve 'problems' of mass extermination and many other fun 'rationalist' activities. Doesn't speak well when those who are claiming to be 'educated' seem to lack all kinds of knowledge in real life. There is nothing 'moral' about scientists or the fake 'Economics' theories so popular with them, either.
And an irrelevant straw man that ignores the progress we have made using science.
So long as you know that is what you are doing and are making sense of it (and of course there is a valid case for that), then I have nothing to argue about.
It is those who revise the Bible and the religion to suit themselves and then claim that they are 'doing what it says' are just wrong, and if they pop up here saying so, they are are going to be called on it.
Would you pls correct my ridiculous typos when you quote me!!!!
Reminder to every one ...I'm not a Christian, according to the Nicene Creed...as much as I'm not a Hindu..but I LOVE the Bhagavad Gita.
Now,....hmm, just saying that, it is actually astounding ...I have no qualms with the Gita.
no cherry picking ...cafeteria still.
I'm no Buddhist...But I love the 4 Noble Truths....and Zen Buddhism.
I know the sound of one hand clapping, after all. ...and The Tao which can not be spoken!
Did I digress again from the point of my typos?
So long as you know that is what you are doing and are making sense of it (and of course there is a valid case for that), then I have nothing to argue about. It is those who revise the Bible and the religion to suit themselves and then claim that they are 'doing what it says' are just wrong, and if they pop up here saying so, they are are going to be called on it.
No one should ever be subjected to hearing a person trying to discuss adult literature from an adult perspective, right?
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.
