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?

[Divine Insight]

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.

Isn't this truly a meaningless rule?

Let's say I claim to be a Christian. Then according to the rules no one can challenge this.

Let's say I go on to claim that Yahweh was clearly a lame mythological God that clearly never exists. Let's say that I go on to claim that Jesus was most likely a complete idiot who apparently didn't know much of anything and most certainly wasn't the son of any God. I might even go further to claim that I loath Christendom because it appears to be a society of religious bigots.

You might be tempted to suggest that I don't qualify as a "Christian" then.

But wait!

According to the rules you aren't permitted to challenge my claim to be a Christian.

Doesn't this rule ultimately make the term "Christian" utterly meaningless?

It seems to me like people who want to call themselves "Christians" are doing nothing more than refusing to define what the label even means, as well as refusing to even address what the label might even mean.

That's a pretty meaningless label at that point.

[Divine Insight]

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.

You are absolutely correct. I totally agree with the non-fundamental "Christian" position, save for agreeing with the obvious fallacy of calling that position "Christian".

Once a person has rejected the Biblical God trying to hold Jesus up as the Son of the Biblical God is rather meaningless it is not?

Apparently the major difference between myself an a non-fundamentalist "Christian" is that I recognize that to become a non-fundamentalist requires rejection of the Biblical God, whereas the non-fundamentalist "Christians" haven't yet realized the folly of their position.

[SallyF]

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.

Isn't this truly a meaningless rule?

Let's say I claim to be a Christian. Then according to the rules no one can challenge this.

It seems to me like people who want to call themselves "Christians" are doing nothing more than refusing to define what the label even means, as well as refusing to even address what the label might even mean.

That's a pretty meaningless label at that point.

(Emphasis mine.)

We have been told on this forum that Atheist Christians are "Christians" and the term seems not to be an oxymoron ...?

We have professional Christians who make their money from the faithful, who are Atheists ...

https://creation.com/atheists-in-the-pulpit

https://owlcation.com/misc/Atheists-in- ... the-Clergy

I haven't posted a graphic for a while ...

[Mithrae]

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

You are absolutely correct. I totally agree with the non-fundamental "Christian" position, save for agreeing with the obvious fallacy of calling that position "Christian".

For those who hold fundamentalist views, it would certainly look like a fallacy. For the rest of us, it is 'obviously' not.

[Divine Insight]

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

You are absolutely correct. I totally agree with the non-fundamental "Christian" position, save for agreeing with the obvious fallacy of calling that position "Christian".

For those who hold fundamentalist views, it would certainly look like a fallacy. For the rest of us, it is 'obviously' not.

That can only be because the "rest of us" haven't yet realized that they have actually already rejected the "Biblical God" and traded him in for an imaginary God of their own imagination.

After all, if you reject the God that is literally described in the Bible, then why on earth would you continue to claim to be associated with the Biblical God?

I'm mean, some people even go as far as rejecting the Biblical claims that Jesus is the virgin born "Son of God" yet they still insist on calling themselves a "Christian"

Apparently, according to the rules of this forum, that's just fine and dandy.

[Divine Insight]

We have been told on this forum that Atheist Christians are "Christians" and the term seems not to be an oxymoron ...?

Exactly. In fact, the reason they can get away with this is because they are using the term "Christian" to simply mean the following:

Christian - Any person who agrees with the moral values of Jesus, or believes that Jesus agrees with their moral values.

That's it. That's the "New Age" definition of "Christian"

And as absurd as this may sound, by that definition, even I can claim to be a "Christian".

Here is my "Christian Position":

1. I totally reject the Old Testament and the Hebrew God Yahweh as being clearly false, utterly absurd, and downright ignorant.

2. I totally reject the idea that Jesus was the virgin born Son of Yahweh.

3. I think Jesus was actually quite stupid and ignorant on many issues.

4. As ignorant as Jesus was I do believe that Jesus held my moral values to a large degree.

5. And of course I don't believe in the ridiculous resurrection rumors.


BINGO!

#4 qualifies me as a "New Age Christian".

So there we go. By the rules of this forum I can claim to be a "Christian" and no one can deny it.

[Mithrae]

We have been told on this forum that Atheist Christians are "Christians" and the term seems not to be an oxymoron ...?

We have professional Christians who make their money from the faithful, who are Atheists ...

Have we? Weird. But then we've also been told on this forum that babies are atheists, so it may be worth taking such claims with a grain of salt

I'd be quite surprised if any serious scholar or intelligent person declared that one is not a Marxist unless one is in 100% agreement with every single opinion Marx held, or that one is not a Republican unless one shares all the opinions of the 18th century founders of that group. Of course fundamentalists do think that way, but more reasonable people recognize that social groups and ideologies can both diversify and evolve over time without necessarily losing their key identifying features.

In the case of Christianity I would say there's three possible defining characteristics, which are not mutually exclusive but not necessarily overlapping either:
> Identifying with and belonging to a Christian community/congregation
> Accepting common Christian beliefs and practices
> Being a 'follower of Christ,' obeying Jesus' teachings

The fundamentalist approach of course is a very specific iteration of the second one - claiming that to be a Christian one must believe in the bible, for example - with just the slight problem that we need to know who the Christians are first, before we can identify common Christian beliefs. Hardly anyone obeys Jesus' teachings, so I include that mostly for the sake of completeness; that's presumably the most important defining characteristic, even if it only covers a few hundred or few thousand folk who actually do so! But for the billion-odd Christians of the various churches and denominations around the world, obviously the primary defining characteristic is identifying with and belonging to Christian communities. In most cases 'Christian beliefs' are a consequence of belonging to a Christian community - most obviously in the case of those raised in a Christian family - and while sometimes adult entrances to the community are predicated on reciting a formula of beliefs, often even that is not the case.

Odds are that even today, most Christians have never read through the bible: Many Christians in poorer countries may not have access to a full bible in their own language, or perhaps may not be able to read at all for that matter, which obviously would have been even more true in previous centuries. So the obsession with that anthology of ancient books among fundamentalists - both Christians and critics - really seems quite irrational, and is largely a modern phenomenon.

That said, I suppose it would be fair to say that believing the bible to be the Word of God or suchlike is a common enough Christian belief that it could be considered a sufficient identifying characteristic, even though it's obviously not a necessary one. Ancient formulas like the Nicene Creed outline no doctrine about the bible, but do include beliefs such as 'one God' and 'his Son Jesus Christ.' However as with modern fundamentalism, these ancient creeds were created specifically because many Christians at the time did not believe those things: They were created to label some as True Christians and others as the Heretics. So once again, short of adopting dogmatic assumptions for oneself, the only rational approach is to take those as sufficient identifying characteristics, but not necessary.

I suppose a case might be made that outright denying the existence of any god and affirming a meaningless materialistic determinism could be considered a disqualifying characteristic. But a more agnostic approach - and particularly one of deep awe at the wonders of reality and humility in the face of the Unknown - is certainly regarded as legitimate by many Christian congregations (including some of those who actually follow Jesus' teachings to forsake all possessions, have no leaders etc.). By your own words and by the definition of many atheists, such a person would also be an atheist. But I really have to wonder why that is such a big deal for you? Is capitalized Atheism supposed to be some kind of exclusive club whose members aren't meant to be Christians? Or is your apparent surprise a consequence of inadvertently accepting dogmatic assumptions about Christianity?

[Divine Insight]

In the case of Christianity I would say there's three possible defining characteristics, which are not mutually exclusive but not necessarily overlapping either:
> Identifying with and belonging to a Christian community/congregation

As far as I'm concerned that definition of a "Christian" is no different from saying that you belong to any club. It's theologically meaningless.

That's really no different from saying that your a Green Bay Packers Fan, etc.

> Accepting common Christian beliefs and practices

Christians can't even decide what constitutes "Common" Christian beliefs.

Clearly Catholics and Protestants don't share "Common Christian Beliefs" because if their did there would be no need for them to have opposing Christian factions.

> Being a 'follower of Christ,' obeying Jesus' teachings

To begin with I feel deeply sorry for anyone who feels that they need to "obey" Jesus.

What sense does that even make?

You either agree with the moral values of Jesus, or you don't.

If you agree with the moral values of Jesus than all you have done is given Jesus your approval for his moral values.

And if you disagree with the moral values of Jesus why on earth would you "obey" them?

I seriously wonder if any Christians are even willing to look at these issues seriously.

If you agree with Jesus, then Jesus agrees with you and there's no need for you to change who you are to be in alignment with Jesus. You certainly wouldn't need to "follow" Jesus if your moral values are the same as his.

And if you disagree with Jesus, then what's up with that?