Drawing Distinctions in Christianity

[WinePusher]

I've read some posts over the past few days where Christians, whom I've noticed never/rarely argue in favor of Christianity and defend Christian Beliefs and generally argue against strongly held Christian convictions, claim to be representatives of the faith and claim to speak for the Christian community. They, of course, get back up from the atheists and non-theists on this forum who support them as the "thoughtful representatives of Christianity" and earn the title "Thinking Theist" from individuals belonging to that group (as an interesting point, the support system amoung the liberals/atheists/non-theists on this forum does work quite well. Rarely are you able to debate with a lib/atheist/non-theist without one of their friends jumping in and helping them out. As another user would say, it's "VERY CUTE" ) 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.

I stand by my previous belief that a person who accepts Jesus Christ as their lord and savior qualifies as a Minimal Christian.

Going into specifics, a Christian who goes on further to accept the five fundamentals of Christianity qualify as a Believing/Fundamentalist Christian.

And one who defends the five fundamentals of Christianity, along with other Christian Convictions, qualify as Christian Apologists.

Do other Christians on this forum agree or disagree?

[otseng]

You do not take anything literally, you are not a Christian. I think you would get along better with everyone else in the "A" room.

Seminary at the time brought more people away from God than to Him, as you are a perfect example of.

Moderator Warning

These would be considered personal attacks and are prohibited by the rules.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[otseng]

There are a couple of statements that sufficently describe your exemplification of cognitive dissonance.

That you are afraid and hesitant to answer questions in a yes/no manner is reflective of your own insecurities and your lack of courage.

You aren't actually able to say what you actually mean which is why you are reluctant and think yourself to be above yes/no question and answer.

You missed every point I made and in doing so you locate yourself in a right wing belligerent extreme, and as a person with an apparent willful inability to entertain anything other than beliefs you already hold. The only analogies that I can think of for this kind of brick-like reading would be the way a know-nothinger or perhaps stalinist or nazi ideologue thinks in politics, a flat earther in science, a tone deaf person to music, and a primitive in art, or an actual brick regarding subtlety and thuggishness.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid making any types of personal comments.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[WinePusher]

Thank you winepusher. My side truly thanks you. You have shown how you "think" and how you roll.

For sure, educating ignorant libs wasn't my intent as I did not consider this feat to be possible, but the fact that it has actually happened is a plus.

The only analogies that I can think of for this kind of brick-like reading would be the way a know-nothinger or perhaps stalinist or nazi ideologue thinks in politics, a flat earther in science, a tone deaf person to music, and a primitive in art, or an actual brick regarding subtlety and thuggishness.

It's disgusting that you would try to compare my ideology to that of a nazis. Your argument must have been pummeled to ash, which is why you feel a need to resort to such nasty rhetoric. I have read and written on the subject of holocaust literature, you should do the same so you can gain some basic sensitivity on this subject matter. And this can of course be added to the evidentiary list in support of Godwin's law. When a participant in an online discussion begins to trap himself, he degenerates into seething about nazis, hitler or the holocaust.

Did you miss where I said a clear "yes" to all your questions?

Nope, I saw that word in your post. I also expectedly saw your nonsensical commentary following all your answers. This is a failure on my part though, as I was no directly specific with a lib and that of course screws up everything. When I ask whether you believe in something, I ask whether or not you believe it happened or existed. This is an assumption I assume all people understand, but apparently not you. You comment that things like a bodily resurrection are not literal facts you insist upon and aren't meant to be taken literally. This obviously means you don't believe in it as a historical fact. Again, my apologies, I wasn't specific and assumed that when a question like "do you believe the tooth fairy puts money under your pillow?" is posed to a person that they adequately understand what is being asked. I will try to remember to be more specific with you.

Did you miss where I reduced the issue to historicity vs. symbolism?

Weird question. Did you? I don't recall you doing so, I injected that topic in as I thought it was relevant. I don't know and don't care about what you did pertaining to this.

Did you miss where only extremists such as yourself insist on historicity and hang their faith on it, confusing it with doctrine?

Oh dear, didn't they give basic language and rhetoric courses at whatever school you went to? If they did, I guess you didn't get to attend any or didn't pay much attention. It's ok, we can make up for lost time here: using hyperbole is a legitimate form of language and can certainly help the writer persuade his audience. But when hyperbole is used counterfactual manners as you've done, the writer is able to persuade no one and loses his credibility. I'll show how what you have written above is an example of this. You say I'm extremist for insisting on the historicity of Christian claims, however not only do I insist upon the historicity of these events but so do any churches that adhere to the apostles or nicene creed or the westminster confession. This would be a large majority of churches both mainstream and on the extreme. So you have failed to appropriately use hyperbole in your writings, or perhaps you simply have a narrowmind and consider a large majority of churches and christians to be extremists.

Did you miss where I decimated your position with substance?

Yup.

Did you miss where I refused to be shoehorned by your abuse of power through language?

I don't know what this means. I don't possess any sort of power, neither was I trying to shoehorn you. I'm doing what everybody else does on here, debating. I do so in my own, preferable style as do you and your buddies. It's possible you're reading to much into something that is absent from existence.

People who, given the amount of time you describe yourself taking in the "thinking" of people lightwieights and unhinged characters like glenn beck, anne coulter, dinesh d'souza, and sean hannity, you have probably never read. And if your deeply confused responses to me are any indication, haven't understood if you have read them.

I'm sorry but your grammar is falling apart and it's becoming a challenge for me to develop even a foundational understanding of what you mean.

I don't read or watch Hannity or Glenn Beck. I like what they say and give them my full support, but they are not prolific writers or orators in the same way people like Christopher Hitchens or Charles Krauthammer are. For that fact alone I don't find it pleasurable to read their works or watch their commentary. I like Ann Coulter as she is a good writer, I read her columns on a regular basis as well as her books. Her books focus on a single thesis which she supports with appeals to history and examples in modern culture and media. Dinesh D' Souza is my favorite apologist and thinker, I have watched commentary and debates and have read only one book though dealing with American Politics. He really is the only apologist who is able to step up to Christopher Hitchens (one of humanities greatest treasures) level of intelligence and you nor your heroes would be able to refute nothing of what he says, whether it be politically or religiously oriented.

Where did I cry?

You try to invoke hyperbole in your post, but you are not even able to recognize in it other people's writings. This is just a lose-lose situation for you.

Come over to my house and we'll see who cries and whines after about a minute. That's a legitimate invitation. I'm moving closer to you soon and can expose you for the punk you are quite readily. Bring a camera. In the end, punks always cry for mommy. No, I am not threatening you; I am inviting you to a duel.

Now this is something I would expect to have been written by a frustrated little child posting on a forum such as youtube. You give a bad reputation to the college you attended and your graduating divinity class. You give a bad reputation to the Catholic Church you so desperately attempt to cling on to when they have all but excluded you. Anyways, I don't care if you are threatening me or if you aren't threatening. What this amounts to is some creepy statement made online by some middle aged man who is losing an argument to another individual whom I assume is half his age and is thereby forced to spew worthless, wannabe intimidating, bullying messages. Surprised no moderators have warned against this type of troubling rhetoric. Actually, not really. This forum must permit the use of threats against others.

[Slopeshoulder]

Thank you winepusher. My side truly thanks you. You have shown how you "think" and how you roll.

For sure, educating ignorant libs wasn't my intent as I did not consider this feat to be possible, but the fact that it has actually happened is a plus.

Substantiate that you are more educated than I.

The only analogies that I can think of for this kind of brick-like reading would be the way a know-nothinger or perhaps stalinist or nazi ideologue thinks in politics, a flat earther in science, a tone deaf person to music, and a primitive in art, or an actual brick regarding subtlety and thuggishness.

It's disgusting that you would try to compare my ideology to that of a nazis.

The analogy was limited, and apt. based on exclusionary elitism and thuggery. that's how you roll.

Your argument must have been pummeled to ash,

Substantiate that my argument was even dented. Or even addressed. Or even understood or engaged.

which is why you feel a need to resort to such nasty rhetoric.

Do not presume to know my feelings. Or to impute cause and effect to them.

I have read and written on the subject of holocaust literature, you should do the same so you can gain some basic sensitivity on this subject matter.

I have. Probably before you were born. I made no mention of the holocaust and did not equate you with nazis. I formally hereby state that I do not equate you; don't be ridiculous. But in a limited sense, the analogy remains apt. Sort of like brownshirts in the 30's aspiring to a job in the ideology department. And clearly your idols beck, coulter, and hannity are well known for having fascistic tendencies. Is that lost on you?

And this can of course be added to the evidentiary list in support of Godwin's law.

I am unfamiliar with this person or his law.

When a participant in an online discussion begins to trap himself, he degenerates into seething about nazis, hitler or the holocaust.

Demonstrate that I have been trapped. Demonstrate that I have even been understood or engaged on substance.
But thank you for substantiating my earlier claim your aim is to trap through gotcha rhetoric.
If anyone is flailing and spewing hate, it's you, and it's visible for all to see.

Did you miss where I said a clear "yes" to all your questions?

Nope, I saw that word in your post. I also expectedly saw your nonsensical commentary following all your answers.

What you call nonsense others call professional theology, advanced discernment, and wisdom. I leave it to mature and reasonable readers to decide.
And demonstrate that it is nonsensical. Then demonstrate that the hundreds of western canonical thinkers upon whom it is based are all traders in nonsense.
So far you haven't offered an argument, just emotion, invective and what passes for discussion in your world.

This is a failure on my part though, as I was no directly specific with a lib and that of course screws up everything. When I ask whether you believe in something, I ask whether or not you believe it happened or existed.This is an assumption I assume all people understand, but apparently not you.

I know that and understand it. You equate belief with historicity, yes, i get it. That's the whole POINT, which after repeated explanations you still don't apparently understand. That equation is an error, and represents primitive thinking and ignorance, theologically. Further studies in epistemology and the grammar of faith, as well as faith development and stages will aid you in overcoming this error in the future. And Jesus will be happy.
NOTE: as I said to my buddy educhris, I do NOT deny historicity, I accept that it could have happened and I don't deny anyone their right to think it happened. Read that again. We have no quarrel there. I simply say historicity is not equated with or required for belief. Demanding that it is is your error. Why can't we coexist as "believeing christians," even apologists, while disagreeing on historicity? why is that a big deal? I've been in many groups of clergy where there were varied views on this and no one started a movement to impose one view and exclude others, establishinhg a hierarchy based on historicity, as you do. I can only ascribe that you to your being influenced by and a mouthpiece for the paranoid fascsistic power discourse of the far right.

You comment that things like a bodily resurrection are not literal facts you insist upon and aren't meant to be taken literally.

Well, let me revise or clarify: it is my OPINION and I am part of a theological SCHOOL that believes it is not historical. But I don't insist it didn't happen. I simply say that it is not required to affirm historicity. You are free to believe it happened and be christian, and I am free to believe it didn't, taking a more modern and nuanced approach to doctrine (that part you called nonsensical commentary) and be Christian. OK?

This obviously means you don't believe in it as a historical fact. Again, my apologies, I wasn't specific and assumed that when a question like "do you believe the tooth fairy puts money under your pillow?" is posed to a person that they adequately understand what is being asked. I will try to remember to be more specific with you.

Innacurate, I understood perfectly. So you're either an idiot or being sarcastic. I'll assume the latter. Uncivil sarcasm. Stop please.

Did you miss where I reduced the issue to historicity vs. symbolism?

Weird question. Did you? I don't recall you doing so, I injected that topic in as I thought it was relevant. I don't know and don't care about what you did pertaining to this.

KEY question. This is the whole point. If you miss this you miss everything and get a F on the paper.

Everythign that follows is moot if you don't get this. Sad.

Did you miss where only extremists such as yourself insist on historicity and hang their faith on it, confusing it with doctrine?

Oh dear, didn't they give basic language and rhetoric courses at whatever school you went to? If they did, I guess you didn't get to attend any or didn't pay much attention. It's ok, we can make up for lost time here: using hyperbole is a legitimate form of language and can certainly help the writer persuade his audience.

Uncivil tone. Personsal attack. Unsubstantiated claim.

But when hyperbole is used counterfactual manners as you've done, the writer is able to persuade no one and loses his credibility. I'll show how what you have written above is an example of this.

What?

You say I'm extremist for insisting on the historicity of Christian claims,

Yes.
Not for believeing it, but for insisting upon it as a basis for an exclusionary hierarcy proposed in the OP.

however not only do I insist upon the historicity of these events but so do any churches that adhere to the apostles or nicene creed

No, they only say that to street level parishoners and kids. But their leaders and adepts and know better. This is well documented.

or the westminster confession.

Oh yes, they were the extremists who couldn't get with the program when every other seminary had isolated them.

This would be a large majority of churches both mainstream and on the extreme.

no, per above, just the extreme.

So you have failed to appropriately use hyperbole in your writings, or perhaps you simply have a narrowmind and consider a large majority of churches and christians to be extremists.

Clarified above.

Did you miss where I decimated your position with substance?

Yup.

We agree!!

Did you miss where I refused to be shoehorned by your abuse of power through language?

I don't know what this means.

I believe you.

I don't possess any sort of power,

Which is why you are trying to get it.

neither was I trying to shoehorn you. I'm doing what everybody else does on here, debating. I do so in my own, preferable style as do you and your buddies. It's possible you're reading to much into something that is absent from existence.

OK, this we can address. My read of your OP is that it is an attempt to create an exclusionary hierarchy based upon a spurious definition of belief rooted in absolute historicty. That is both wrong and a power grab that serves your power needs. That is the ONLY reason I am in this thread.

People who, given the amount of time you describe yourself taking in the "thinking" of people lightwieights and unhinged characters like glenn beck, anne coulter, dinesh d'souza, and sean hannity, you have probably never read. And if your deeply confused responses to me are any indication, haven't understood if you have read them.

I'm sorry but your grammar is falling apart and it's becoming a challenge for me to develop even a foundational understanding of what you mean.

Perhaps it is complexity that challenges you.

I don't read or watch Hannity or Glenn Beck. I like what they say and give them my full support, but they are not prolific writers or orators in the same way people like Christopher Hitchens or Charles Krauthammer are. For that fact alone I don't find it pleasurable to read their works or watch their commentary. I like Ann Coulter as she is a good writer, I read her columns on a regular basis as well as her books. Her books focus on a single thesis which she supports with appeals to history and examples in modern culture and media.

OK, thanks for clarifying.

Dinesh D' Souza is my favorite apologist and thinker, I have watched commentary and debates and have read only one book though dealing with American Politics. He really is the only apologist who is able to step up to Christopher Hitchens (one of humanities greatest treasures) level of intelligence

That's another topic, but he does get credit for stepping up, and to be honest I am appaled that real, serious, great religious thinkers have not followed his example. Shame on them.

and you nor your heroes would be able to refute nothing of what he says, whether it be politically or religiously oriented.

Did you just say, and mean to say, that D'Souza is beyond criticism by anyone in the western canon? Dude, he's a lightweight and a bottom feeder. I think maybe kant or heidegger or merton or many others might be able to fidn fault somewhere.

Where did I cry?

You try to invoke hyperbole in your post, but you are not even able to recognize in it other people's writings. This is just a lose-lose situation for you.

Sorry, that comes across as white noise.

Come over to my house and we'll see who cries and whines after about a minute. That's a legitimate invitation. I'm moving closer to you soon and can expose you for the punk you are quite readily. Bring a camera. In the end, punks always cry for mommy. No, I am not threatening you; I am inviting you to a duel.

Now this is something I would expect to have been written by a frustrated little child posting on a forum such as youtube. You give a bad reputation to the college you attended and your graduating divinity class. You give a bad reputation to the Catholic Church you so desperately attempt to cling on to when they have all but excluded you. Anyways, I don't care if you are threatening me or if you aren't threatening. What this amounts to is some creepy statement made online by some middle aged man who is losing an argument to another individual whom I assume is half his age and is thereby forced to spew worthless, wannabe intimidating, bullying messages. Surprised no moderators have warned against this type of troubling rhetoric. Actually, not really. This forum must permit the use of threats against others.

Actually I thought it was kind of fun!
And well earned given your broad brush use of incivility.
And carefully worded too. I'm good that way.

And watch what you say about middle aged men unless you want to be accused of agism along with all the other prejudices. I might surpise you. Do I detect an ad hominum?

Let's wrap it up.

[ByFaithAlone]

I am truly saddened to see such conflict between my Christian brothers.

Although I personally agree with neither of you...

Regardless of ideologies, you have both confessed to believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. As you both agree, this is the only test to determine if you are Christian!!!!!

_____________________________

To Winepusher:

For sure, educating ignorant libs wasn't my intent as I did not consider this feat to be possible, but the fact that it has actually happened is a plus.

Attacking his education is a low blow as is attacking liberals in general. You do this multiple times throughout your responses. If you wish to discuss political ideology go to the Politics and Religion section or start a Head-to-Head.

Just because Slopeshoulder doesn't believe in the literal bodily resurrection or any number of another doctrines you hold to be true does not make him any less of a Christian. He gives a clear yes on the question that matters.

_____________________________

To Slopeshoulder:

The only analogies that I can think of for this kind of brick-like reading would be the way a know-nothinger or perhaps stalinist or nazi ideologue thinks in politics, a flat earther in science, a tone deaf person to music, and a primitive in art, or an actual brick regarding subtlety and thuggishness.

Please don't compare your opponent to Nazis, Stalinists, etc. It is very insulting and I would ask you to retract that statement as it does not encourage a productive debate.

Did you miss where only extremists such as yourself insist on historicity and hang their faith on it, confusing it with doctrine?

Please don't call WP an extremist. He is far from it. At least he is willing to discuss his ideas! The confusing historicity and doctrine issue is for another time and place (perhaps Head-to-Head). By calling WP an extremist, you label most of the Christian church in the USA if not the world as extremists. His values are pretty mainstream IMO. I could be wrong and would gladly admit it but based on my experiences calling either of you extreme would be incorrect.

Come over to my house and we'll see who cries and whines after about a minute. That's a legitimate invitation. I'm moving closer to you soon and can expose you for the punk you are quite readily. Bring a camera. In the end, punks always cry for mommy. No, I am not threatening you; I am inviting you to a duel.

Threatening another debater or in this case challenging them to a duel, is not the way to deal with this. Dueling is illegal in the United States and threats are not allowed on this forum. Before anyone gets put under probation, please refrain from dueling.

_____________________________

To both of you:

You are both using personal attacks on your opponent more than debating the issue. This is the ad hominem fallacy. ATTACK THE ARGUMENT NOT THE DEBATER.

_____________________________

Now on to the actual debate.

The only requirement for a Christian is that he or she believes in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior (see John 3:16). This does not make them a minimal Christian. There is no such thing. If you believe this, you are a believing Christian. This is the fundamental concept of Christianity. Everything else is what separates denominations from each other.

Therefore, if we agree on the above statements then I can see no reason why both of you can be labeled as believing/fundamentalist Christians. As both of you defend your faith, you are both Christian apologists. Congratulations!

_____________________________

A few parting words...

As Christians, we need to stand by each other. Christ reminds us “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.� – Matthew 18:20 KJV

Would Christ want to see such bitterness between Christian brothers? If you would say no then please apologize to each other for any hurt this may have caused and let us continue this debate in a civil manner.

Let us end this bitterness before someone gets placed under probation or is removed from the forums.

A few more verses to think about...

"I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." - Ephesians 4:1-3 KJV

[Slopeshoulder]

ByFaithAlone:
Great post.
Thank you.
I agree with 98% of it.
I call WP extremist because of his exclusionary literalism. The exclusionary part, the insistence, the far right is right, the entry level is the only level, everyone else is wrong aspect. And because the whole westminster postion is extreme on the continuum by definition.
Let's say that on a scale from one to ten, with 1 being extreme right (hagge, falwell, sproul, dobson) and 10 extreme left (spong, crossan), I'd say he strikes me as a 2.5 and I'm an 8.5.
I think rational and honest readers of my posts will get the basic thrust of my position, and I am thank god almighty that WP isn't the only one interpreting them.
Great post. Thanks again. I admire you.

[Darias]

To both of you:

You are both using personal attacks on your opponent more than debating the issue. This is the ad hominem fallacy. ATTACK THE ARGUMENT NOT THE DEBATER.

I agree with your assessment of this thread, but I can't moderate it because I've already engaged in the debate.

I would like to make a point though...

It doesn't surprise me to see this thread boil down to ad hominems because that was the whole point of the thread in the first place -- to label non-fundamentalist Christians as false in some sense. I felt very much the way SS did when WP posted it. I actually thought the thread was created in response to my posts as I have been quite active on the forum lately.

WP doesn't have to name names, we know he's referring to us.

This is all like rehashing old business for me; I've already participated in a debate gone sour here before, where I was labeled false for not thinking homosexuality was a sin and for doubting the doctrine of the Trinity.

And my position has evolved since then, and I've grown thicker skin since then. But, I still avoid the Holy Huddle for obvious reasons...

Anyways, I no longer care if you guys think I'm a Christian or not.

I was raised in a Christian home and went to church my whole life. I'm very familiar with its teachings. It's a part of my culture -- it's who I am.

Sure, I'm unorthodox; sure I'm not a fundamentalist. But I see no need to divorce myself from the term "Christian" and become something else I'm not. I'm not Jewish; I don't feel compelled to be a Buddhist, etc.

For me, it's like being an American. I'm an American and that's who I am. I may not be Glenn Beck, but I love this country. Just because I'm liberal, it doesn't mean I should become a citizen of another country -- that's just absurd.

And as far as bettering the image of Christianity to non-Christians, I have absolutely no problem with that. As long as the world identifies Christianity with people like Falwell, Hagee, etc., they'll despise Christianity for the ugly irrational hateful thing it appears to be.

I honestly don't think those famous pastors were anything like Jesus; I'll go so far as to say most Christians aren't, including myself.

But the fact is if it weren't for moderates and liberals, Christianity would still be in the dark ages -- and we wouldn't have people like Jefferson, Washington, etc.

For me, being a Christian is this:

Love God, and love your neighbors.


That should be the essence, right? Or is being a Christian all about staying faithful to ritual, dogma, and religion?

I've chosen the former.

[otseng]

For sure, educating ignorant libs wasn't my intent

Now this is something I would expect to have been written by a frustrated little child posting on a forum such as youtube. You give a bad reputation to the college you attended and your graduating divinity class. You give a bad reputation to the Catholic Church you so desperately attempt to cling on to when they have all but excluded you. Anyways, I don't care if you are threatening me or if you aren't threatening. What this amounts to is some creepy statement made online by some middle aged man who is losing an argument to another individual whom I assume is half his age and is thereby forced to spew worthless, wannabe intimidating, bullying messages.

Moderator Warning

These would be considered to be personal attacks.

Please review our Rules.

Surprised no moderators have warned against this type of troubling rhetoric. Actually, not really. This forum must permit the use of threats against others.

This thread already has 2 moderator warnings and a comment. And this would make it the third warning. How many moderator actions are required for people to take notice?

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Slopeshoulder]

It doesn't surprise me to see this thread boil down to ad hominems because that was the whole point of the thread in the first place -- to label non-fundamentalist Christians as false in some sense.

Bingo!
As if we wouldn't notice the power move! As if we're idiots.
I've rarely seen such dishonesty as in the OP and follow ups. It's to religion what Beck is to historical analysis.

But, I still avoid the Holy Huddle for obvious reasons...

Anyways, I no longer care if you guys think I'm a Christian or not.

If the holy huddle is the private preserve for fundamentalists and bigoted self appointed doctrine police, then this forum has failed. I doubt that is what Otseng intends or approves.

(good stuff snipped)... they'll despise Christianity for the ugly irrational hateful thing it appears to be.

We agree, and the great modern liberal project is designed to prevent this from happening, to reappropriate a living tradition. Unlike taliban, we don't pine for or seek to recreate the middle ages (catholic) or the first century (protestant).

But the fact is if it weren't for moderates and liberals, Christianity would still be in the dark ages -- and we wouldn't have people like Jefferson, Washington, etc.

For me, being a Christian is this:

Love God, and love your neighbors.


That should be the essence, right? Or is being a Christian all about staying faithful to ritual, dogma, and religion?

I've chosen the former.

AND, if you study and maybe go to div school, or find the right mentor/director/pastor, you can even find a way, as I did, to reappropriate and update the reading of doctrine, ritual, dogma to make thme ring and resonate anew! (I'm my own pastor).
God loves a searcher Darias. Blessings, namaste, and all that stuff.

[micatala]

I stand by my previous belief that a person who accepts Jesus Christ as their lord and savior qualifies as a Minimal Christian.

I've asked for the Biblical justification for the requirment of believing in what WinePusher has referred to as the five fundamentals. Let me ask in particular where is the Biblical justification for the categorization "minimal Christian" or is there some other justification WinePusher has in mind for this term and class?

Going into specifics, a Christian who goes on further to accept the five fundamentals of Christianity qualify as a Believing/Fundamentalist Christian.

Just to clarify, can you spell out exactly what you identify as the five fundamentals?

And one who defends the five fundamentals of Christianity, along with other Christian Convictions, qualify as Christian Apologists.

Do other Christians on this forum agree or disagree?

Just to clarify, so I am not making unwarranted assumptions, do you consider the class of Christian Apologists as being contained in the class of Fundamentalists?




To be clear, I acknowledge anyone can create any classifications they want. I personally do not agree with these classifications and view the use of the term "believing Christian" spelled out here to be an attempt at marginializing those who do not fit the description. The implication is that those who are not "believing Christians" are somehow "unbelieving Christians."






There has been some discussion of symbolism versus historical literalism. I may have more to say on this later, but will simply note for now my view that many passages in the Bible are ambiguous enough to be taken either way. This would include a good chunk of Genesis, especially the initial chapters.

I will note Jesus taught primarily in parables, and Mark even states he did not teach without using parables. However, not all of his teachings are explicitly labeled as such. For example, the story of Lazarus and the rich man which I believe occurs in Luke. This story does mention Moses and Abraham which I tend to think of as actual "historical" persons, even if I allow not all of what is said about them in the BIble is literally true. Does this make the rich man and Lazarus the beggar literal people? Does it even matter if they are or not?



WP seems to think if you deny the literal history you are somehow not a believing Christian. I think the very nature of much of the Bible makes this contention problematical at best.



However, while I may disagree with WinePusher's theology, or a lot of other Christians on their theology, I fully acknowledge them as Christians who, as spelled in Romans 14, stand before their maker on their own. I do not consider it my place to interpose my views into their relationship with Christ or to suggest God considers their views as less worthy or valid than mine.

If I object to the religious views of others, it is primarily because of the effects, often rather concrete effects, those views seem to have on the society I live in. However, I hope I argue on the basis of the effects and not the beliefs themselves, and that is certainly my goal.



I certainly have made no secret of my identification as a Christian, and to the extent I have defended my religious views on the forum, I would consider myself a Christian apologist.