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.
To a non-Christian, everyone who takes the Bible and matters of doctrine seriously is a "fundamentalist," with the term carrying a negative connotation that it never has within Christianity. "Fundies" - ewwwww, icky. "Progressive" Christianity, on the other hand - ah, that's like being "gay" or supporting women's "reproductive health."
There is certainly a high degree of fragmentation within the Christian community, no question about that. The more any group strays from core doctrines, the more likely it is to be regarded as "not Christian at all" - to wit, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and yes, even Catholics. This is not to say Jehovah's Witnesses are regarded as non-Christian throughout mainstream Christianity, merely that if you do stray from core doctrines (the Trinity, the divinity of Christ) you are going to find yourself open to this charge from some segments of the mainstream community. Only the most extreme segments would suggest Catholics are flatly not Christians at all, and I have only seen this view expressed by folks I would regard as a bit unhinged myself. The writings of Natasha Crain (the blog author) do not strike me as coming from a wild-eyed fundamentalist but from a mainstream apologist with genuine concerns that I share.
Christianity is about something. It is not about "feeling warm and fuzzy when you think of Jesus" or "doing nice things and saying Jesus sent you." It is about the core doctrines being believed and carried into action. Of course atheists and the followers of other religions are going to feel less threatened by, and more warm toward, the "Christian" who proclaims "None of that primitive Bible stuff really matters as long as we love each other. I'll do my Jesus thing and you do your atheist thing and it'll all be OK as long we have love and peace." That is not Christianity. It is a perversion of Christianity that any mainstream Christian, not just a fundamentalist or evangelical, would recognize as a perversion. It is not what Jesus was talking about unless your "Jesus" is a figment of your own imagination, having no relationship to the historical Jesus.
Natasha Crain acknowledges that so-called "progressive Christianity" can be hard to precisely define. She lists the following indicia:
A lowered view of the Bible
Feelings are emphasized over facts
Essential Christian doctrines are open for reinterpretation
Historic terms are redefined
The heart of the gospel message shifts from sin and redemption to social justice
She goes on to state: "Here’s the danger. To the untrained ear, the progressive Christian message can sound a lot like biblical Christianity. There’s talk of God, Jesus, the Bible, love, and compassion. If a child has never learned to think more deeply about theology and what the Bible actually teaches, they can easily mistake progressive Christianity for biblical Christianity."
I believe this is correct. In fact, I would be even more harsh and say "they can easily mistake progressive 'Christianity' for Christianity, which it simply isn't." It's a counterfeit. To be a Christian, you do indeed have to be "the right kind" of Christian to at least some degree. Is a kind and loving Buddhist or atheist the right kind of Christian? No, I don't think anyone would say so. Do I become the right kind of Christian if I preach peace and love in the name of Christ while reinventing the historical Jesus, rejecting key teachings and doctrines as primitive hogwash, and ignoring the central Christian message that human nature is tainted by sin and in need of redemption through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus if the judgment of God is to be avoided? No, I don't think I do.
Again, Christianity is about something. Atheists and pretend Christians would like it to be about nothing. Just calling yourself a Christian is indeed not enough.
Perhaps if you would outline what your "core values" are, some of us more liberal Jesus followers could challenge you using nothing but Scripture.
I dearly love to point out to fundamentalists how contorted some of their "values" are as they damn to hell good people for having other points of view. And, oh yes, I was a fundamentalist, attended a conservative Southern Baptist college, and am only three hours shy of a Bible minor. One can only understand what the Bible truly says if they can escape the garbage that too often is passed off in Sunday School without a nickel's worth of cultural studies and and by not bothering to study the many conflicting "laws" and rules of the OT to get a grasp of why there were differences. Instead "conservative" (translated "fundamentalist") Christians create fictional stories, not one of which is in the Bible to "explain" (read "make me not look so gullible") the contrary stories.
Try reading Peter Enns' book "INSPIRATION AND INCARNATION." Enns was a professor at a very conservative seminary who ended up getting fired by its board of directors for talking difficult biblical texts and pointing out where some of the stories in the OT came from secular sources--even some of the wisdom literature (Proverbs) comes from secular sources reworked into the Jewish mindset. And the NT has several overlooked references to then current cultural ideas---such as Paul's reference to the rock that brought forth water in the wilderness and then FOLLOWING the Hebrews for 40 years. Nowhere is that claimed in the OT, but it became a Jewish rabbinical tradition that dates back in scrolls to around 200 CE. So how did Paul know of that tradition since it wasn't in the OT and he wasn't alive in 200? Obviously it had been an oral tradition for decades if not centuries. So it is a non-biblical assumption in the midst of his letter to the Corinthians (I Cor 10:1-4)
As one of those "progressive" types now, I'm far more interested in how someone puts their beliefs in practice rather than what they believe. Jesus was the same way. He didn't care one whit that the Samaritan, an infidel by Jewish view, didn't believe the right stuff, He praised him for his action that showed mercy and kindness to a stranger--a Jew at that. The good church folks, with all the right beliefs, walked by that injured man.
Those Catholics you denigrate had their belief system in place quite a few centuries before Protestant fundamentalism came along as a Johnny Come-Lately. In many respects their beliefs are quite consistent. They believe in the sanctity of life---and that includes a stance against the death penalty. On the other hand Protestants abhor abortion, but are quite satisfied voting for politicians and prosecutors who promise to inject poisonous concoctions into anyone caught in a crime--and are constantly pushing to lower the standards to get more people incarcerated for ten years or so before finally legally offing them.
Yep, I have far more respect for those who put their lives on the line for what they themselves believe. Instead, fundamentalist come up with their own criteria and claim anyone even slightly out of sync is "going to hell." If only fundamentalists gave as much attention to their own sins as they do to what they believe--why we would have repentance and revival instead of finger pointing!! Never doubt for a moment a fundamentalist's ability to overemphasize the shortcomings of others while minimizing or overlooking their own.
The Bible is at best complicated and at worst incomprehensible. Jesus summed up everything we need to live up to His expectations. Love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself. But here we are 2100 years later and a significant portion of Protestant Christianity continues to make rules about what we must "believe." It is religiosity at its norm.
Is it any surprise that Jesus' harshest words were reserved solely for the most religious?
Last edited by Wardendresden; 06-05-2017 at 02:40 AM..
Do you think so? Well I have news for you, sunshine Trolls exist no more than your god does, but a ToS on dishing out accusations of trolling just because you don't like what somebody says, DOES exist. I promise you.
He was annoyed, not Trolling. And I don't mind a bit.
Thanks for re- railing that line . Yes, there is an element of dishing out the most corrosive spew and then being genuinely surprised and aggrieved when they get banned " We were simply stating the truth!"
I was not even really thinking of moderated sites like this, where trolling will get you banned.
More like comments below youtube videos, blogs and news articles - where they are free to say what they like and think, which are often very provocative comments, and of course have to be able to cope with not so nice responses and/or language in return from non-Christians, other denominations, progressive liberals etc.
Try reading Peter Enns' book "INSPIRATION AND INCARNATION." Enns was a professor at a very conservative seminary who ended up getting fired by its board of directors for talking difficult biblical texts and pointing out where some of the stories in the OT came from secular sources--even some of the wisdom literature (Proverbs) comes from secular sources reworked into the Jewish mindset. And the NT has several overlooked references to then current cultural ideas---such as Paul's reference to the rock that brought forth water in the wilderness and then FOLLOWING the Hebrews for 40 years. Nowhere is that claimed in the OT, but it became a Jewish rabbinical tradition that dates back in scrolls to around 200 CE. So how did Paul know of that tradition since it wasn't in the OT and he wasn't alive in 200? Obviously it had been an oral tradition for decades if not centuries. So it is a non-biblical assumption in the midst of his letter to the Corinthians (I Cor 10:1-4)
....
That's very interesting. I only saw right away that it was rubbish and just assumed that Paul was lying to the Gentile Corinthians about passing through the Red Sea (without really getting more than drizzle) as a Baptism. But I had no idea that the Rock following them was a later fable. If anything it confirms that Paul's writings at least are Paul and not an invention of Marcion, as is sometimes claimed.
Christianity has evolved over time, some sects dislike others. This occurs in many established religions.
If you accept Jesus as your savior, and know the way to the kingdom of heaven is through him, and honor the 10 commandments, you should have clear sailing. I'm certain you didn't post this to troll, but to gather insight.
So, should a child honor a parent that beats and rapes them? See, life is more complex than your 10 commandments.
That's very interesting. I only saw right away that it was rubbish and just assumed that Paul was lying to the Gentile Corinthians about passing through the Red Sea (without really getting more than drizzle) as a Baptism. But I had no idea that the Rock following them was a later fable. If anything it confirms that Paul's writings at least are Paul and not an invention of Marcion, as is sometimes claimed.
I don't know how this idea was arrived at, considering: 1) the Rock HAD to be there for them to have WATER all those 40 years, and 2) no where are we told it left them. Peace
I thought the message of Jesus was to love one another, believe in him, and spread the good news. No? I thought the most important part of Christianity was to be "saved." Has that changed?
Apparently it has. Being Christian isn't enough for the fundamentalists - you have to be the RIGHT KIND of Christian.
How do you expect anyone outside of Christianity to take you folks seriously when you cannot even agree amongst yourselves?
I once had two friends who were fundamentalists, in the same religion but different towns. One of them was always trying to save the other. It has always been that way.
I thought the message of Jesus was to love one another, believe in him, and spread the good news. No? I thought the most important part of Christianity was to be "saved." Has that changed?
Apparently it has. Being Christian isn't enough for the fundamentalists - you have to be the RIGHT KIND of Christian.
How do you expect anyone outside of Christianity to take you folks seriously when you cannot even agree amongst yourselves?
It sounds like a "watered down" form of Chrisitanity for liberals.
Try reading Peter Enns' book "INSPIRATION AND INCARNATION." Enns was a professor at a very conservative seminary who ended up getting fired by its board of directors for talking difficult biblical texts and pointing out where some of the stories in the OT came from secular sources--even some of the wisdom literature (Proverbs) comes from secular sources reworked into the Jewish mindset. And the NT has several overlooked references to then current cultural ideas---such as Paul's reference to the rock that brought forth water in the wilderness and then FOLLOWING the Hebrews for 40 years. Nowhere is that claimed in the OT, but it became a Jewish rabbinical tradition that dates back in scrolls to around 200 CE. So how did Paul know of that tradition since it wasn't in the OT and he wasn't alive in 200? Obviously it had been an oral tradition for decades if not centuries. So it is a non-biblical assumption in the midst of his letter to the Corinthians (I Cor 10:1-4)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
That's very interesting. I only saw right away that it was rubbish and just assumed that Paul was lying to the Gentile Corinthians about passing through the Red Sea (without really getting more than drizzle) as a Baptism. But I had no idea that the Rock following them was a later fable. If anything it confirms that Paul's writings at least are Paul and not an invention of Marcion, as is sometimes claimed.
I don't normally post on this forum, but thought I would comment on the issue of the rock which accompanied Israel. The rock which accompanied Israel was not a literal physical rock which rolled along on the ground following the Israelites and gave them water. Paul stated that it was a spiritual rock and that the rock was Christ. The Old Testament is full of references to God as the rock of Israel. - Genesis 49:24, Deuteronomy 32:15, Deuteronomy 32:31, 1 Samuel 2:2, 2 Samuel 22:32, 2 Samuel 22:47, 2 Samuel 23:3, Psalm 78:35, Isaiah 8:14, Isaiah 30:29, to name but a few.
Psalm 78:35 And they remembered that God was their rock, And the Most High God their Redeemer.
Psalm 78:13-41 refers to the Hebrew's wanderings in the wilderness after leaving Egypt and God's guidance and provisions for them in spite of their constant unfaithfulness.
They often had no water to drink for periods of time. But there are two recorded instances in which Moses was told to strike a rock in order to provide water for the people. Those are Exodus 17:1 and Numbers 20:10. These were two different rocks in two different locations.
But what Paul was referring to is the fact that God, the Rock of Israel accompanied the Hebrews through the wilderness, and it was He who provided the water. Paul recognized that Jesus is God (Phil. 2:5-8) and so in 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 he recognized that the spiritual rock which accompanied the Hebrews was Christ.
This is not to say that the New Testament writers didn't draw on sources outside of the Old Testament. The lake of fire imagery for instance is taken straight from the book of Enoch which was second temple period Jewish literature. But Paul's reference to the spiritual rock accompanying the Hebrews through the wilderness is rooted in the Old Testament.
Last edited by Michael Way; 06-06-2017 at 08:44 AM..
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.
Trolls exist no more than your god does, but a ToS on dishing out accusations of trolling just because you don't like what somebody says, DOES exist. I promise you.
He was annoyed, not Trolling. And I don't mind a bit.
. Yes, there is an element of dishing out the most corrosive spew and then being genuinely surprised and aggrieved when they get banned " 
We were simply stating the truth!"
