What distinguishes Non-Fundamental Christian beliefs?

[Zzyzx]

.
What distinguishes Non-Fundamental Christian beliefs from Fundamentalist Christian beliefs?

In a current thread someone complains that ‘Fundamentalist Atheists’ (whatever that means) cannot / do not distinguish Non-Fundamental Christian beliefs from Fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

What, exactly, do Non-Fundamental Christian believe that is DIFFERENT from Fundamentalist Christian beliefs?

Which position speaks for Christianity in general?

[Elijah John]

.
What distinguishes Non-Fundamental Christian beliefs from Fundamentalist Christian beliefs?

In a current thread someone complains that ‘Fundamentalist Atheists’ (whatever that means) cannot / do not distinguish Non-Fundamental Christian beliefs from Fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

What, exactly, do Non-Fundamental Christian believe that is DIFFERENT from Fundamentalist Christian beliefs?

Which position speaks for Christianity in general?

NF Chistians take the Bible seriously, but not literally.
NF Christians see the Bible as a source of spiritual inspiration and guidance, and not as a book of science.
NF Christians have a broader view of God's love and mercy, and do not attempt to confine them to "right beliefs" about Jesus.
NF Christians do believe in God's ultimate justice, but do not believe that means eternal torture in the fires of hell, certainly not simply for "wrong" belief.
NF Christians Believe God is the judge as to the final dispensation of a person's soul, not people.
NF Christians see Reason as God-given, and not as something fallen, nor as something to be distrusted.
NF Christians believe that God considers a persons actions and attitudes more important than their "beliefs"..
NF Christians believe that God transcends every and any book, including the Bible, and cannot be confined by any.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 31 by Elijah John]

Outstanding response EJ.

That describes a friend here – widow of a man of stratospheric intelligence and a brilliant woman herself (and whose daughter recently obtained a Ph.D. and was ordained as a minister). Although quite Christian, she is on the opposite end of the continuum from Fundamentalists / Literalists / Traditonalists.

She doesn’t ‘wear religion on her sleeve’ (or forehead) and does not present mythology as truth, but quietly goes about life actually doing some good things that Christianity claims for itself. Her efforts to feed hungry people with food that was previously discarded has grown into quite an operation with a lot of people involved (including me) and provides thousands of meals per month (all based out of her house – I tell her that she’s going have to find another place to live).

Joyce is content to accept (not just tolerate) whatever a person believes (or doesn’t believe) about God and the Bible – or whatever religious ideas they may have – and does not claim to have any greater understanding of supernatural matters than anyone else. She has more important things to do than proselytize or even talk about religion.

[Divine Insight]

Which position speaks for Christianity in general?

NF Chistians take the Bible seriously, but not literally.
NF Christians see the Bible as a source of spiritual inspiration and guidance, and not as a book of science.
NF Christians have a broader view of God's love and mercy, and do not attempt to confine them to "right beliefs" about Jesus.
NF Christians do believe in God's ultimate justice, but do not believe that means eternal torture in the fires of hell, certainly not simply for "wrong" belief.
NF Christians Believe God is the judge as to the final dispensation of a person's soul, not people.
NF Christians see Reason as God-given, and not as something fallen, nor as something to be distrusted.
NF Christians believe that God considers a persons actions and attitudes more important than their "beliefs"..
NF Christians believe that God transcends every and any book, including the Bible, and cannot be confined by any.

The only problem with this is that it doesn't speak for Non-Fundamental Christians in general. To the contrary this appears to be the opinions of the individual stating them.

I came from a very non-fundamental Christian sect and they would not agree with many of the things on EJ's list.

NF Chistians take the Bible seriously, but not literally.


I have no clue what "not literally" is supposed to mean.

My non-fundamentalist church certainly believed in a literal Adam and Eve;
a literal Stone Tablet with the Ten Commandments written on them by God,
a literal "Burning Bush"
a literal Moses
a literal Noah
a literal Great Flood
a literal virgin-born Jesus
a literal crucifixion
a literal resurrection of Christ
a literal ascension into heaven by Christ

So have no clue what people mean when they talk about a "non-literal" Bible. What exactly is it that they think was non-literal?

NF Christians see the Bible as a source of spiritual inspiration and guidance, and not as a book of science.

My non-fundamental Christian church believed that the description of Genesis is TRUE.

Did then demand that a day was 24 hours long? No. They allowed that a "day" for God could indeed be millions of years for a human. So they allowed for some flexibility in terms of the precise meanings of words. But they still accepted that the Bible was giving a "literal" account of how God created the world.

I mean, exactly how much of the Bible does a person need to deny in order to claim to be a non-literalist? If a person denies all of it, then why even claim to be adhering to the stories in the first place. Any religion that tosses out the entire Bible just to avoid having to defend what it actually says can no longer claim to be a religion based on the Bible, IMHO.

So even taking the Bible in a non-literal sense doesn't free a Biblical theist from things the Bible is actually claiming. That's just a cop-out to avoid having to defend an indefensible cannon of stories. Proclaiming that it doesn't even come close to meaning what it actually says is a very poor theological argument for religious texts.

That's not just being non-literal, that's denying the literature entirely.

NF Christians have a broader view of God's love and mercy, and do not attempt to confine them to "right beliefs" about Jesus.

Again, this appears to be nothing more than a personal opinion. One that isn't supported by reality. Many of the non-fundamentalist Christian demoninations have grave disagreements with each other over what constitutes "right beliefs" about Jesus. So most non-fundamentalist Christians sects are indeed concerned with what constitutes "right beliefs" about Jesus.

NF Christians do believe in God's ultimate justice, but do not believe that means eternal torture in the fires of hell, certainly not simply for "wrong" belief.


Not true. Many NF Christians believe in hell and they also believe in John's proclamation that those who do not believe in the name of God's Son are condemned already.

In fact, what is EJ suggesting here? That Christians are to reject the claims made by John? In fact, the way it's written this was actually supposed to be Jesus making this claim. John was supposedly to be merely passing on the information.

So is EJ saying that NF Christians reject the proclamations attributed to Christ?

Sounds more to me like a very personal and individual opinion rather than a description of NF Christians in general.

NF Christians Believe God is the judge as to the final dispensation of a person's soul, not people.

This one seems to imply that Fundamentalist Christians believe that mortal men can judge the final dispensation of a person's soul. I'm pretty sure that even most Fundies would reject that accusation being made toward them.

NF Christians see Reason as God-given, and not as something fallen, nor as something to be distrusted.

Again, this sounds like a personal opinion to me. Perhaps what EJ would like to believe NF Christians should be?

Also, I'm willing to bet that even Fundies believe that they are being "reasonable" so why should a Fundy reject "reason" or think that reason should be distrusted?

This appears to be assuming a lot about what Fundies actually believe.

NF Christians believe that God considers a persons actions and attitudes more important than their "beliefs".

Again, this appears to be an attempt to accuse Fundies of the opposite position which many Fundies would disagree with. Of course, as mentioned previously rejecting that Christ is the Son of God is not an option, but that's true for anyone who hasn't tossed the Book of John out of the Christian Cannon.

Even Jesus is quoted as saying that no one comes to the Father by by him. This is central to Christianity whether a person is a fundie or not.

Just exactly how much of the religion does a person need to toss out to be considered a NF Christian? Based on EJ's description of a NF Christian it sounds like they need to pretty much toss all of it out.

NF Christians believe that God transcends every and any book, including the Bible, and cannot be confined by any.

Yep, there it goes. Let's just toss the entire Bible out as being irrelevant.

Problem solved.

Now we no longer need to worry about having to defend that obviously indefensible book anymore. Just toss it out and pretend it was never written.

NF Christians have been freed from the entire Christian theological doctrine.

Do they even still believe that Jesus was the Son of God and that he died for their sins and was resurrected and ascended to heaven?

Or have the tossed that out as well?

Sounds to me like in order to become a NF Christian by EJ's definition a person would need to join Taoism and distance themselves from the Hebrew Bible as far as possible denying everything it says.

[SallyF]

.
What distinguishes Non-Fundamental Christian beliefs from Fundamentalist Christian beliefs?

In a current thread someone complains that ‘Fundamentalist Atheists’ (whatever that means) cannot / do not distinguish Non-Fundamental Christian beliefs from Fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

What, exactly, do Non-Fundamental Christian believe that is DIFFERENT from Fundamentalist Christian beliefs?

Which position speaks for Christianity in general?

NF Chistians take the Bible seriously, but not literally.
NF Christians see the Bible as a source of spiritual inspiration and guidance, and not as a book of science.
NF Christians have a broader view of God's love and mercy, and do not attempt to confine them to "right beliefs" about Jesus.
NF Christians do believe in God's ultimate justice, but do not believe that means eternal torture in the fires of hell, certainly not simply for "wrong" belief.
NF Christians Believe God is the judge as to the final dispensation of a person's soul, not people.
NF Christians see Reason as God-given, and not as something fallen, nor as something to be distrusted.
NF Christians believe that God considers a persons actions and attitudes more important than their "beliefs"..
NF Christians believe that God transcends every and any book, including the Bible, and cannot be confined by any.

NF Christians are Quasi-Atheists.

NF Christians toss most of their cake in the bin and still have it - they keep the candles and the sprinkles and the hard shell of icing, but the mouldering substance has been conveniently discarded.

NF Christians blow a smokescreen over what they actually mean by "God" - "God" seems to be some general term that can mean just whatever they choose it to mean.

NF Christians seem to have tossed the biblical Jehovah - as he is actually written - into the bin with the rest of the unpalatable cake.

NF Christians seem to have tossed the notion of Jesus coming to Earth through the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary to deliberately shed his blood on Calvary's Cruel tree as a human sacrifice for the remission of the sins of all mankind, into the same bin.

NF Christians certainly DO distinguish themselves from 2,000 years of traditional Christian belief.

NF Christians - with their humanist values and discarding of vast numbers of biblical details as written - are almost INDISTINGUISHABLE from New Atheists.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 34 by SallyF]

Sorry, my beliefs as a non fundamentalist Christian are NOTHING like yours as an atheist. You don't get to define me or my fellow NF Christians as atheist, quasi or whatever..

You seem to be taking the Fundamentalist view of God at face-value, then rejecting him. Are you saying that the only valid way to be a Christian is by being a Fundamentalist Christian? That is a straw man argument.

If that is what you are saying, you are treading on shaky ground here and are close to violating an important forum rule.

About the only things you and I agree on is that Jesus is not God, and that no one died to "pay for" anyone's sins.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 34 by SallyF]

How do you define "New Atheists"?

[Elijah John]

.
[Replying to post 31 by Elijah John]

Outstanding response EJ.

That describes a friend here – widow of a man of stratospheric intelligence and a brilliant woman herself (and whose daughter recently obtained a Ph.D. and was ordained as a minister). Although quite Christian, she is on the opposite end of the continuum from Fundamentalists / Literalists / Traditonalists.

She doesn’t ‘wear religion on her sleeve’ (or forehead) and does not present mythology as truth, but quietly goes about life actually doing some good things that Christianity claims for itself. Her efforts to feed hungry people with food that was previously discarded has grown into quite an operation with a lot of people involved (including me) and provides thousands of meals per month (all based out of her house – I tell her that she’s going have to find another place to live).

Joyce is content to accept (not just tolerate) whatever a person believes (or doesn’t believe) about God and the Bible – or whatever religious ideas they may have – and does not claim to have any greater understanding of supernatural matters than anyone else. She has more important things to do than proselytize or even talk about religion.

Your friend Joyce exemplifies something said by St. Francis. "Preach the Gospel at all times, if necessary, use words".

Sounds like your friend preaches by example more than words. The world could use more of that kind of quiet witness.

[Elijah John]

.
What distinguishes Non-Fundamental Christian beliefs from Fundamentalist Christian beliefs?

In a current thread someone complains that ‘Fundamentalist Atheists’ (whatever that means) cannot / do not distinguish Non-Fundamental Christian beliefs from Fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

What, exactly, do Non-Fundamental Christian believe that is DIFFERENT from Fundamentalist Christian beliefs?

Which position speaks for Christianity in general?

NF Chistians take the Bible seriously, but not literally.
NF Christians see the Bible as a source of spiritual inspiration and guidance, and not as a book of science.
NF Christians have a broader view of God's love and mercy, and do not attempt to confine them to "right beliefs" about Jesus.
NF Christians do believe in God's ultimate justice, but do not believe that means eternal torture in the fires of hell, certainly not simply for "wrong" belief.
NF Christians Believe God is the judge as to the final dispensation of a person's soul, not people.
NF Christians see Reason as God-given, and not as something fallen, nor as something to be distrusted.
NF Christians believe that God considers a persons actions and attitudes more important than their "beliefs"..
NF Christians believe that God transcends every and any book, including the Bible, and cannot be confined by any.

NF Christians are Quasi-Atheists.

Reminder, it is against the rules to redefine anyone who identifies here as Christian as something else. I am a NF Christian, NOT an atheist, "quasi" or otherwise.

NF Christians toss most of their cake in the bin and still have it - they keep the candles and the sprinkles and the hard shell of icing, but the mouldering substance has been conveniently discarded.

Yes, the Exodus 21.20-21 would be an example of "mouldering substance" as you put it. The Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments would be examples of the good stuff, along with passages such as Micah 6.6-6-8. These are passages which Christian detractors conveniently ignore, because it does not fit their narrative of the "monster God" of the Bible. We NF Christians, by contrast, do not accept the Bible hook, line and sinker, but rather use our God-given Reason to separate the "diamonds from the dung" as Jefferson put it. He too, "cherry picked" the Bible to compile a more benevolent version. He used his own God-given Reason for his own editing process.

NF Christians blow a smokescreen over what they actually mean by "God" - "God" seems to be some general term that can mean just whatever they choose it to mean.

That is an offensive way to put it, and inaccurate. Your accusation implies deliberate deception about what many of us believe. Also, if there is a God, can anyone of us really completely understand Him? Can you? I doubt it. And we NF Christians realize that even the Bible cannot, and does not always accurately reflect his reality, a reality that many of us experience but can never completely understand. If we could, He wouldn't be God. The God we NF Christians know, love and worship is not the God who condones the keeping or beating of slaves. The God we NF Christians know, love and worship encourages all of us to live by the Golden Rule.

NF Christians seem to have tossed the biblical Jehovah - as he is actually written - into the bin with the rest of the unpalatable cake.

See above. And we NF Christians realize the Bible did not drop in-tact from Heaven, but was rather an account of an ancient people's collective encounter with the Divine. And in the retelling, the Ancients seems to have gotten it wrong now and again. The God they recount does not always live up to His own standards. The God who liberated the ancient Hebrews from slavery, would not turn around and then condone that same people keeping and beating slaves. And yes, there are significant scientific inaccuracies in the Bible.

NF Christians seem to have tossed the notion of Jesus coming to Earth through the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary to deliberately shed his blood on Calvary's Cruel tree as a human sacrifice for the remission of the sins of all mankind, into the same bin.

Yes, I think that is true for many of us, me included. Many of us NF Christians believe the real, historical Jesus preached the love and mercy of the Father, love of God and neighbor, and not God's supposed need for blood sacrifice, human or animal. Jesus quote of Hosea 6.6 is a good example of this.

NF Christians certainly DO distinguish themselves from 2,000 years of traditional Christian belief.

The apostasy from Jesus original teachings has indeed lasted a long time. Paul is largely to blame from the NF Christian pov, many of us anyway.

NF Christians - with their humanist values and discarding of vast numbers of biblical details as written - are almost INDISTINGUISHABLE from New Atheists.

Again, please define "New Atheist" or link to your answer if you already have. If you ever did answer, I missed it.

And Atheists do not believe in God. We NF Christians, do, big difference. We are distinguished from Fundamentalisst in that we do not believe the Bible is perfect, only God is perfect. Nor was it dictated.

Are you saying the only honest way to believe in and worship God is the Fundamentalist way? If so, that seems fallacious on multiple levels.

[Divine Insight]

Your accusation implies deliberate deception about what many of us believe.

What about self-deception? Would that be "deliberate"?

Are you saying the only honest way to believe in and worship God is the Fundamentalist way? If so, that seems fallacious on multiple levels.

I personally take this position very firmly when it comes to Biblical theology.

Why? Because if a person is going to claim to be a Biblical Theist then, yes, they most certainly need to be a biblical fundamentalist.

Once a person starts to question what's written in the Bible then I don't see how they can continue to claim to be "Biblical Theists".

Whatever they are calling "God" cannot be the Biblical God if they are tossing out large chunks of the Bible.

What I don't understand is why they can't openly say that they no longer believe in the Biblical God and that they would rather just imagine a God of their own making?

For them to continue to reject what's actually written in the Bible yet continue to claim to be talking about, or defending the "Biblical God" is indeed deception at that point. Even if entirely self-deception that they aren't even consciously aware of.

The moment a Biblical Theist starts tossing out large chunks of the Bible or pretending that it can be twisted via "reinterpretation" into something it clearly never intended to say, they have already conceded my position.

My position is simply, "The Bible cannot be true as it is written".

Apparently ALL non-fundamental Christians necessarily agree with my position because the moment they have become non-fundamentalists is the moment they have rejected the truth of the Bible verbatim as it is written.

The moment they did that they have moved on to creating a God of their own making that is clearly not the Biblical God.

[Mithrae]

Apparently ALL non-fundamental Christians necessarily agree with my position because the moment they have become non-fundamentalists is the moment they have rejected the truth of the Bible verbatim as it is written.

More accurately, you are agreeing with the non-fundamentalist Christian position; it was around long before you realised it to be true.