WP, most of your post was an ignorant ad hominum rant. But for the sake of readers and God, I'll respond to what little substance I was able to find.
I exclude you (generalized term) from the Fundamentalist/Believing aspect of Christianity.
But that's jejune. Of course I'm not a fundamentalist.
The problem is that you doing more than you claim, you are equating fundamentalism with
believing, therefore with legitimate christianity, and thereby excluding non-fundamentalists. To you believing/faith is literalism and nothing more. How very small and sad. Your rhetoric is step one in a purge/pogram. Admit it.
I doubt you actually will have the nerve to answer these questions directly,
Another ad hominum. Of course I do.
in a yes/no manner,
Ah, a common tactic of the fundamentalist: either-or, us-them, in-out, right wrong, true-false, black-white DYADIC thinking, like that of a child, where they also presume, in a power move, to define the definitions and parameters. Your questions are a well known gotcha move, and should not, per my criticism above, be taken as somehow definitional or authoritative regarding what christianity
is. That is an assumption that I and countless others reject. And have done so ever since the extremist arch conservative reactionaries proposed them 90 years ago.
But if you read below you will see how orthodox and apologetic I actually am.
but I'll put them to you anyways so your precious readers and see how sincere your criticisms really are.
Fact: these are huge questions which require more than yes/no. And of course, I do not in any way cede to winepusher-of-the-internet any authority to judge me, others, or even the content of the faith in any mature and informed way.
And because I do not deem WP to be a worthy candidate for a systematic theology custom written right here, I will keep my answers brief.
In answering these quesions (not submitting to this trial, which is what it actually is in WP schema, not a jejune effort to categorize), I am helping WP to establish what is already known, and no more: I am not a fundamentalist. But perhaps you will see that I am also orthodox, a christian in good standing.
Literalism and orthodoxy are not equated.
Do you believe Jesus of Nazareth existed,
Of course.
performed miracles,
Miracle stories are symbolic and theological in intent. They are to be taken seriously, as sources of faith, discernment, insight, and as objects of reflection and veneration, but not literally, by all Christians.
So yes, I affirm the miracle stories as core to christian faith and life. I also find it deeply beautiful and inspiring. We can never get rid of it.
died by crucifixion
Of course.
and by the power of the father, rose three days after death
Ressurection stories are symbolic and theological in intent. They are to be taken seriously, but not literally, by Christians. It is a doctrine we affirm (for reflection, discernment, faith, veneration, etc), not a literal fact we insist upon.
So yes, I affirm the doctrine as core to christian faith and life. I also find it deeply beautiful and inspiring. We can never get rid of it if we are to be legitimately Christian.
Do you believe in the divine inspiration of Scripture,
Yes. But I probably mean something different by that than you. I suspect you mean, with children and literalists, that God pretty much wrote it using human hands in one way or another and to one degree or another.
But in a way i believe that too, the more mature way: I believe that the authors had such insight, such contemplative clarity, as did those who edited the writings and collected them, that we can say they were tapped in, in an undefinable and mystical way, to what we call divine or God, and God poured into them and out of them.
So yes, I affirm that scripture is divinely inspired. I affirm the doctrine as core to christian faith and life. I also find it deeply beautiful and inspiring. We can never get rid of it if we are to be legitimately Christian.
and that Scripture stands supreme as the guiding point and source of truth for our faith?
Yes, I affirm prima scriptura, but not sola scriptura. And of course, not being a fundamentalist, I don't take it literally but rather as intended: mystically, ethically, and theologically. But yes, it has a primary or normative role in all theological refection and can never be contradicted, given what we take to be its meaning. But that last phrase is where good people can disagree and where conversations get imteresting.
Do you believe that Jesus was concieved by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of a Virgin?
The immaculate conception and birth stories are symbolic and theological in intent. They are to be taken seriously, but not literally, by Christians. It is a doctrine we affirm, not a fact we insist upon.
So yes, I affirm the doctrine as core to christian faith and life. I also find it deeply beautiful and inspiring. We can never get rid of it if we are to be legitimately called Christian.
Do you believe that by the death of Jesus Christ mankind and God were reconciled and our sins were redeemed?
I think you mean death and ressurection.
Death is literal of course.
As above ressurection stories are symbolic and theological in intent.
Regarding, redemtion/reconciliation, my own involvement with this is less in the augustinian and lutheran tradition and more in the christian existentialist and eastern orthodox traditions. Less sin/atonement, more light/dark. Either way, a symbolic and utterly unique and wonderful triumph over death in all its forms.
So yes, I affirm the doctrine as core to christian faith and life. I also find it deeply beautiful and inspiring. We can never get rid of it if we are to be legitimately called christian.
And it is these things, along with some other theology and cultural and biographical details, that keep me an orthodox christian, even though I see the spirit of God in all major religions, and in some minor ones. As well as in all people who seek truth and life and meaning in the face of thier opposites.
Have you ever defended any of these contentions in debate with atheists and skeptics? Links?
Oh yes, these and more.
I gather that you have misread my posts (well, that's an understatement).
While I am not in the business of trying to convince others of these doctrines' literal historicity, my main goal is to disabuse them of this literality and focus on their powerful and redemptive
meaning in order to affect metanoia. In doing so, many skeptics and non-theists have commented upon, in threads and PM's and in real life, how I have been successful in doing this. In this way I free God from fundamentalists and participate in co-creation, walking with the holy spirit to reveal god, redeem the world, and build the kingdom. Which is what do in everything I do, everything.
But I guess in your reactionary literalism and self-appointed role as the "the definer," you must have missed all that.
So you see? I reject literalism yet answer "
yes" to all your questions. And I mean it. So...I'm an orthodox confessing christian. Even an apologist. The secret's out.
If your god is literalism, I wish you good luck. I consider that to be an idolatry, as well as a lack of faith in the work of the spirit of god in history.
WP, here's a challenge to you. Print this out, unedited, and instead of taking it to your "friends," or to catholic answers forum (a misleading name for a misleading place) or whatever, get your butt over to a great catholic university or mainstream seminary and run it by a professor of systematic theology or philosophy of religion who affirms vatican 2 (exclude neo-thomists as they are premodern). You might learn something about how I am christian, and a small part of what "speaks for christianity."
) Without naming names, they do not and never will represent my Christianity. Thus, I've come to the conclusion that distinctions need to be drawn within the Christian Faith.
