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?

[ByFaithAlone]

And here we go again into ad hominem (hey that almost rhymed)...

I'm just going to ignore the personal attacks that revolve around underpants, who is man enough, who is the better Catholic, not being a Christian, etc. I believe I have stated my position on that many times already and don't want to sound like a broken record.

I'm not Catholic so I won't get involved in this whole excommunication thing or lack thereof.

In regards to the resurrection issue, I'm not sure I completely understand and I personally don't like it but I won't let my bias get in the way. I don't think it effects SS's standing as a Christian or his relationship with me as a brother in Christ.

Regarding Buddhism, I would say it's perfectly ok if SS decides to be practicing. IMO Buddhism is, at its very core, a philosophy, not a religion. Hindu, I would take issue with as it regards additional gods which is contrary to monotheism.

[Slopeshoulder]

Hindu, I would take issue with as it regards additional gods which is contrary to monotheism.

Actually, if I may...Hindu gods are actually manifestations of one God (Brahmin). They are not gods in the western sense per se. They sort of function like catholic saints: as ways into god, as local or experience-specific points of engagement. They are mythical creatures (although yes, many take them literally).
Recent religious studies' scholarly consensus is actually that the charge of polytheism against hinduism is actually an orientalist error; it's a monotheism. Really.

The larger issue for Christians regarding Hinduism is that it is monistic rather than dualistic. Atman (self) is Brahmin (god, for lack of a better word). Humanity is not created and exiled, humanity is rather unaware of its divine nature. All is divine and all is one.

The point of overlap with christianity has to do with being unaware and exiled.
The point of contention is whether Jesus was a unique incarnation, or if we are all "one in being with the father" if we would only wake up like he did.

It's an interesting area. I OFTEN wonder what the doctrine of god would look like if the people responding to the Jesus events were working in India rather than Europe, using indian ontology rather than greek. In this regard, I find the eastern churches (syriac, thomasene, etc) very interesting. The greek orthodox and eastern rite catholicisms come closest.


Raimon Pannikar, Bede Griffiths and Wayne Teasdale and others are or were involved in this interfaith engagement. As are many lesser knowns. An australian catholic named Morwood wrote a book called Was Jesus God that argued more towards Hinduism, and got himslf kicked out. I think he became an Anglican.

As a catholic priest friend of mine, of long standing, said to me in private, "You've always got to check out the people who get in trouble. That's where all the good work is being done!"

Re BH, sorry, there's something about that boy that makes it hard to resist giving him a public spanking, especially when he starts it with all that heresy crap based on an onanistic-idolatrous approach to cathechism 101. He brings out my inner Sam Kinison. (Oh Oh Ohohoh OH!!!!)
Is twerp an ad hominum?

OK, let's lighten up. At least I gave him a more thoughtful and detailed answer than he has ever offered me.

[WinePusher]

Good, the conversation between us seems to have taken a turn for the better. I'll apologize for the mean and hurtful statements I've made in my engagement with you and this will probably be one of my last posts in this thread so I can work on my head to head debate.

Which is odd, because as a Christian I expect you believe in an omnipotent God that does actively intervene in the world.

I do affirm such a thing, but the details get a little dicey. The Christan God is a god of history. Absolutely. This is the concept. The Jewish one too of course. But honesty requires me to say that exactly what those interventions are is hard to pin down, and we look suspect or even foolish when we try, especially if we have to be anachronistically premodernly-minded in doing so.

There is no need to specifically pin down what these interventions may or may not be. They are either one of two possibilities. Assuming the Christian God does intervene, it is either done in a natural and casual way, in keeping with the laws of nature he himself laid in place, or it is done in a supernatural way not in keeping with the laws of nature he laid in place.

What you refer to as "magical history" is what I would refer to as Divine Intervention.

Sure, fair enough. You're free to believe that. It's possible. AGAIN, I don't deny it. But I do think the details get dicey and it would be wrongheaded to take the magical tales in the Bible literally in this regard when 1. they strain credulity, differ frm all our other experience, 2. can be considered to have a literary symbolic function, and 3. that symbolic function reveals meaning that is just as rich. That's my judgement, your mileage may vary. Having said that, I have several things I my own life that feel something like the presence and guiding hand of an interventionsist personal divine agent, aka God.

Fine, I think it's safe to assume that you believe God does actively intervene but, for the most part, only in natural ways. First, while it does (I agree with you) differ from all our experiences in the modern world, what one would expect is God to intervene in a manner he deems most appropriate. Perhaps he found it in his best interest to intervene in pretentious and lavish ways in a time period where the people were staunch believers in magic and superstition and perhaps he finds it in his best interest to refrain from doing this in the 21st century and itnervene in causual ways due to the dominance of science and rationalism.

The third possibility, and the one I embrace, is christian mysticism. This is a huge area, but pertaining to our discussion, the pertinant themes would be these:
- god is unknowable, even while present, and all our discussion of him must be symbolic and humble, radically inadequete.
- god is "beyond" God, beyond even notions like existence, simply because he/it cannot be reduced to earthly categories.
- so even while God can be said to be omnipotent and omnipresent, and yes a god of history, an event paradigm is not the richest way to frame God. Rather, God is closer to a presence and ground than an actor/agent. This is NOT to say that God doesn't and can't do specific interventions, it simply says that our framing of God and experience of God is not best served by emphasiszing this aspect; it represents a common but more pedestrian notion that spiritual adepts and advanced students transcend, a missed opportunity.
- the bible stories are not meant to establish a historical record or prove to us the power of God. Rather they are meant to help us frame God, no matter our sophistication level, in order to affect a transformation and liberation, metanoia and salvation. It's not about what God does, except to say that God is underneath and behind all, and he does things in our hearts through the presence of grace (what rahner called the "transcendental existential," referencing Heidegger).

I obviously disagree with all these points and I'll lay out my own tenants for Christianity to counter what you've said:

-What the Bible does is establish a historical record of salvation. Some of these events are fictional while others are (I believe) actually historical, this would include the resurrection, the virgin birth, most miracles relating to Jesus of Nazareth. Going back and thinking on what you said: "that symbolic function reveals meaning that is just as rich" I have come to the conclusion that I have always been in agreement with this but disagreed with your precise wording and presentation of it. For example, I have never taken the Book Of Jonah literally, at face value. I consider the story to be fiction, and serves as a symbolic and illustrative story to reveal to us more about God, that he is not only confined to one particular people or nation but rather is universal. If this is what you mean then we agree.
-Some parts of the Bible are fictional and other parts are historical fact. There exists really no established criteria for distinguishing between the two, but what we keep in mind is that the Bible illustrates for us the core essential doctrines of Christianity. God actively created the world out of his infinite love and humans are his special creation. By the choice of the first humans (whomever those may be) sin entered the world and we were seperated from God. Because of this, every other subsequent human born into existence was born into a fallen state of being. Again, due to God's infinite love, he sought a way to reconcile us with himself and thus "the word was made flesh and dwelt amoung us." This word (Jesus Christ) atoned for our sins and acted as a mediator between us and God the Father. This is the purpose of the Bible, to relay this story to humanity.
-God is knowable. This premise is foundational to any type of Christianity. God desires us to personally know him, love him and form a personal relationship with him.

Let's put this to rest: I don't label you a fascist. I simply point out that, an inarguable fact, the hard right in america and elsewhere has fascist tendencies, inclinations, and analogies, by definition. And that I see some of this is your religous and political ideas, your hero's ideas, and your expression and tactics. If the shoe fits... I refer you to Umberto Eco's 14 points of universal fascism. It has many faces and looks different in each incarnation. For example, if this were the early 30's and you were in Spain, I find it hard to believe you would not be an activist supporter of Franco. Today, in America we see it taking other forms. This is not an insult, it is an analysis, and a warning to readers. I would be DELIGHTED to be wrong, I assure you. Give me a good old conservative any time.

I don't support the "religious hard right" in America. I support the "moderate religious center-right" as I cling ot both conservative and liberal beliefs, however my conservative religious beliefs outnumber my liberal religious beliefs. You seem to be getting into politics here. Yes, I'm a supporter of the hard politicla right in America and I've constantly argued for fiscal and social conservative principles here and elsewhere. Facism is associated with the far far right just as communism is associated with the far far left, yet you'll notice that facism is not in keeping with American Conservative views advanced by Coulter, Hannity, D' Souza and Limbaugh, that is a support for the constitution, a support for life, a support for small and limited government and a support for individualism and personal responsibility. When it comes to these views and how strongly I support and believe in them, I gladly welcome the title of extremist.

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

I find this extremely funny as someone who's spent a lot of time studying grammar and sentence structure, I literally laughed out loud when I read this. It's an amateur mistake. The correct phrasing would be "WP doesn't have to name names, [strike]we[/strike] I know he's referring to [strike]us[/strike] me." The word "us" refers to a group of people, the word "I" and "Me" refer to single individuals. Yea, I was referring to a group of people known as liberal christians, you got that right. And although you'll find this hard to believe I wasn't referring to any specific individual including you, you got that wrong.

[melissa]

Winepusher, as a Christian, I agree with you for the most part. He has not yet separated the tares from the wheat so it's a frustration we live with. But we must not
make any true Christian, even one you may call "minimal", into an unglorious thing since
"It is because of Him that you are in Christ Jesus," so the glory goes to him for whatever stage we may be in, and, "Who are you to judge another man's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand for the Lord is able to make him stand."