I'm afraid there are only 2 ways of being a true believin' Christian

by Zep 75 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Zep

  sunchild

  this is what funkyderek said:

  "I think there's a third way. It's possible to follow (some or all of) the teachings of the biblical character Jesus without believing all of the mythology surrounding him. For some people, to be a Christian is simply to be like Christ - compassionate, contemplative, disdainful of religious hypocrisy. A story doesn't have to be literally true to have resonance."

  I think this fits rev Shelby Spong perfectly. As far as I see this is a very broad catagory that FD is proposing.

  "But why do non-fundamentlist definitions of Christianity bother you? Is there any specific reason?"

  It doesn't bother, in the sense of making me angry, that Spong, or anyone for that matter, call themselves Christians. I just don't relate to it. I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to use the FD definition or anything. I'm just too use to the idea that to be a Christian you have to believe in the literal truth of the bible. For me a Christian IS a fundamentalist. They believe that the bible is the word of God and it's pretty much all true and all that stuff happened. Thats my problem.

  With FD's definition of a Christian you don't have to believe in any of the bible. You can dismiss it as complete hogwash, that its all made up. But you can still use the stories in the bible as motivational tools in your own life. Like FD says, a story doesn't have to be true to have resonance. With this definition of a Christian, because you don't believe that the bible is literally true, you can also dismiss certain moral tenants of the bible and still claim to be a Christian. You can sort of pick and choose your morality. Where do you draw the line as far as being a Christian is concerned? It's just too murky a definition of a Christian for me. Nah, I prefer to see a Christian as someone who believes in the literal truth of the bible and tries to follow all it's moral direction. Simple!

  But...

  Ok...I suppose there are 2 types of Christians: Fundamentalist Christians and Funkderek Christians. Both groups are very broad catagories. The Fundamentalists, with respect to their religion, are ignorant and dishonest. They may or may not be ignorant and/or dishonest in other aspects of life. The Funkyderek Christians are far more open minded and dont use the bible as an absolute road map to life. When science or reasoned argument weigh heavily against the bible the Funkyderek Christians dismiss the bible in favor of common sense. It is possible to be both a Funkyderek Christian and Fundamentalist Christian.

  So..........long live the Cult of Funky Christians, even though i'm still not 100% comfortable with the definition and will probably still view a lot of them as unbelieving atheists like myself.
• 

  Sunchild

  With FD's definition of a Christian you don't have to believe in any of the bible. You can dismiss it as complete hogwash, that its all made up. But you can still use the stories in the bible as motivational tools in your own life. Like FD says, a story doesn't have to be true to have resonance. With this definition of a Christian, because you don't believe that the bible is literally true, you can also dismiss certain moral tenants of the bible and still claim to be a Christian. You can sort of pick and choose your morality. Where do you draw the line as far as being a Christian is concerned? It's just too murky a definition of a Christian for me. Nah, I prefer to see a Christian as someone who believes in the literal truth of the bible and tries to follow all it's moral direction.

  I once heard a really neat saying that covers my point of view very well: "Jesus is the Word of God. The Bible is a book of words about God." I think that people who are all wrapped up in "The Bible says this" and "The Bible says that" and take every single word as immutable law aren't really listening when God tries to speak to them. It's kind of hard to hear anyone when you don't want to listen, especially if the One who's speaking tends to whisper.

  Personally, I choose to rely on the Holy Spirit -- that piece of God that lives within me -- and my understanding of Jesus's character to tell me what's true and what isn't. In other words, I just trust in God to let me know where the boundaries are. That is, after all, why Christians receive the Holy Spirit in the first place. I don't understand why so few are willing to trust it.

  My apologies if all this God-talk makes you uncomfortable, but it's kind of hard to explain my faith without it. *g*

  ~Rochelle.
• 

  LittleToe

  Zep:

  Ok...I suppose there are 2 types of Christians: Fundamentalist Christians and Funkderek Christians.

  There ya go again with that two choice, black and white thinking...
• 

  Zep

  little toe

  Yeah,well....

  I don't think your reading me correctly.

  Sunchild

  Sorry, I am curious about your version of Christianity. I could throw heaps of questions at you right now...but I aint got time. I might get around to reading your essay fully too. But really, I feel theres no point, I'm too set in my ways. I'm an atheist, i'm not hugely passionate about Jesus, I don't see it changing.

  I do want to ask: whats Christianity got that Paganism doesn't. I've never met a Pagan, atleast a person who'd call themselves a Pagan. It sounds like fun. All those festivals...orgies?????? Christianity must be so dull in comparison!
• 

  logansrun

  Actually, Zep's argument isn't necessarily a false dichotomy if he were to present it a little differently. It seems to me he is saying that one is either a literalistic, absolutistic Christian or one is not. It's more a matter of method than doctrine. So, Zep could present the following:

  When it comes to Bible interpretation one is either (methodologically and strategically)

  1) A literalist (the Bible is the literal, fully inspired, verbal -- not one word is wrong -- Word of God)

  --or--

  2) A non-literalist (the Bible isn't literally true in every respect and may contain errors, etc)

  Notice there can be great variety among the views of people who would fall into either category, but they still do fall into either of these "umbrella" categories when it comes to their a priori assumptions about the Bible. It's similar to saying that, in the US, either one voted for George Bush or one did not. That's not a false dichotomy either.

  Bradley

  *******Now, some may take me to task in saying that no one views the Bible as literally true in every respect. What about Jesus parables, for instance? No fundamentalist I've met takes all of Jesus parables literally (although I did meet one who felt that way about the rich man and Lazarus!). But, when I say "literalist" I'm talking about someone who takes the Bible accounts of the flood, Jesus walking on the water and other miracle stories (and historical tales) as literal. A Bible "literalist" will take some passages of the Bible non-literally (ie, Jesus parables) since the context obviously shows that it is meant to be taken that way.
• 

  logansrun

  In other words, you either believe in the verbal inspiration of the Bible or you do not.

  B.
• 

  LittleToe

  Bradley:
  I like the way you pre4sent it, but that wasn't what Zep actually said...
  

  Zep:If what Bradley posits is what you actually meant, then I think I have a better grasp of what you're trying to say.
  
• 

  Sunchild

  Hi again, Zep.

  Sorry, I am curious about your version of Christianity. I could throw heaps of questions at you right now...but I aint got time. I might get around to reading your essay fully too. But really, I feel theres no point, I'm too set in my ways. I'm an atheist, i'm not hugely passionate about Jesus, I don't see it changing.

  All of the above is fine with me, and that includes your curiosity. I've gotten rather used to it.

  I do want to ask: whats Christianity got that Paganism doesn't. I've never met a Pagan, atleast a person who'd call themselves a Pagan. It sounds like fun. All those festivals...orgies?????? Christianity must be so dull in comparison!

  Erm, I hate to disappoint you, but I have yet to run across any Neopagan religion in which orgies are part of the package, and you'd probably find most Wiccan rituals (Wicca was my main inclination) odd or sort of boring. True, there are certain traditions, covens and individuals who do practice their rituals nude, but even they don't have orgies. Nudity is employed for its spiritual symbolism, i.e. being naked before the Goddess and the God, not for sexual reasons.

  Following any spiritual path is about finding one's own most effective, meaningful way of communing with the Divine, both in terms of God however you perceive Him/Her/It and the spark of God that lives within ourselves. Being a Pagan didn't work for me because I didn't experience that, at least not in the same "real" sense that I feel it as a Christian. It's a hard concept to put into words, but it's unmistakable.

  ~Rochelle.
• 

  funkyderek

  Ok...I suppose there are 2 types of Christians: Fundamentalist Christians and Funkderek Christians.

  What the hell? Now I have a brand of Christianity named after me?! Damn religious types, always wanting to follow somebody.
• 

  Billygoat

  Ok...I suppose there are 2 types of Christians: Fundamentalist Christians and Funkderek Christians.

  What the hell? Now I have a brand of Christianity named after me?! Damn religious types, always wanting to follow somebody.

  Hahaha! That's what you get for being so mean to people in the past. Andi - *tongue plantly firmly in cheek!*