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?
Drawing Distinctions in Christianity
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Drawing Distinctions in Christianity
Post #21As a person who sees some good points on both sides of this argument, I want to point out that when some people "speak the truth to power" it is called "speaking prophetic truth to power," but when others do the same thing it is called "incendiary."WinePusher wrote:...employing double standards...
- Slopeshoulder
- Banned
- Posts: 3367
- Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:46 pm
- Location: San Francisco
Re: Drawing Distinctions in Christianity
Post #22touche.EduChris wrote:As a person who sees some good points on both sides of this argument, I want to point out that when some people "speak the truth to power" it is called "speaking prophetic truth to power," but when others do the same thing it is called "incendiary."WinePusher wrote:...employing double standards...
But it's a style issue not a substance isse, no?
Re: Drawing Distinctions in Christianity
Post #23Much of it is style, but I think you exaggerate a bit in implying that all scholarly theologians have moved away from a literal bodily resurrection. There is a difference between appreciating insights that don't depend on a literal resurrection (as all scholarly theologians do) and tossing out the literal resurrection altogether (which only the liberal theologians do).Slopeshoulder wrote:touche.EduChris wrote:As a person who sees some good points on both sides of this argument, I want to point out that when some people "speak the truth to power" it is called "speaking prophetic truth to power," but when others do the same thing it is called "incendiary."WinePusher wrote:...employing double standards...
But it's a style issue not a substance isse, no?
- Slopeshoulder
- Banned
- Posts: 3367
- Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:46 pm
- Location: San Francisco
Re: Drawing Distinctions in Christianity
Post #24Oh, I agree. I don't mean to imply that. While I do think that the preponderance of ordained scholars inclines in general away from historicity, certainly fundamentalism, it's certainly not all, and not for every doctrine/event. I studied with Richard B. Hays, and he certainly affirms historicity of the bodily ressurection, as a faith move and by analysis, but he does so humbly, with great learning, and with respect for others and the great variety of points of view. He certainly doesn't seek to disenfranchise or silence other members of the faculty that might disagree.EduChris wrote:Much of it is style, but I think you exaggerate a bit in implying that all scholarly theologians have moved away from a literal bodily resurrection. There is a difference between appreciating insights that don't depend on a literal resurrection (as all scholarly theologians do) and tossing out the literal resurrection altogether (which only the liberal theologians do).Slopeshoulder wrote:touche.EduChris wrote:As a person who sees some good points on both sides of this argument, I want to point out that when some people "speak the truth to power" it is called "speaking prophetic truth to power," but when others do the same thing it is called "incendiary."WinePusher wrote:...employing double standards...
But it's a style issue not a substance isse, no?
(BTW, Hays is clearly known as a conservative, an evangelical methodist, but fundy extremists have called him liberal! Where does it stop? One is tmpted to ask, as Joseph McCarthy was asked, "have no decency left at long last" to some of them).
Note that I don't deny that Jesus rose bodily etc, and never have. I simply deny that we are required to belive it literally, and I recommend a way to reappropriate the doctrine(s) as part of a living tradition that remains orthodox while meeting the needs of an evolving historical context, on behalf of a living god and an living spirit; in other words, the great modern (liberal) project. When WP talks about ossified beliefs and injected subjectivity, all I can see is nuremberg, and all I can hear is white noise.
It is not the kind (Hays, you, others) of respectful and inclusive historicity per se that I reject (not at all, I respect it), but rather a blanket insistence upon rank historicity as an exclusive condition for full enfranchisement in Christian belief and community, as WP advocates (remind me to ask myself why I'm even here; talk about debasing oneself). It is certainly a legitimate modern orthodox move to reappropriate core biblical-doctrinal material in symbolic-mystical-theological terms, as I and others do, and the derision and dismissal by the WP's of this world that I find so off base, confused, belligerent, idolatrous, and abusive of power are not going to change that or delegitimate it. Especally when it done so dishonestly and crassly. Send me Hays and others (i.e. you), fine; send me WP, um, no.
But yes, I agree with your point and don't wish to imply otherwise. I'm sure we could have mutually enlightening and respectful conversations about it. I take you seriously, and I imagine you do the same.
Re: style, like you, I sometimes overstate my case because the opponents can be such maddening P'sITA. I think fundamentalist extremists are doing more damage, so I seek to put them out of business before approaching the huge swath of secularism, seekers, agnostics, non-theists with a more compelling message. That's why they hate me. I get it.
-
- Banned
- Posts: 327
- Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:30 pm
- Location: U.S.A.
Re: Drawing Distinctions in Christianity
Post #25Of course.Do you believe Jesus of Nazareth existed,
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.performed miracles,
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.
So...miracles are like nice little bedtime stories. You love 'em, and they're special to you, but they're myths. Is that what your implying?-Braveheart
Of course.died by crucifixion
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.and by the power of the father, rose three days after death
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.
So...the resurrection to is just a bedtime story too. You don't think Jesus Christ really rose from the dead. Tell me, how does it affect your religion, to think that God decayed in the grave? It has always been the belief of true Christians that Jesus Christ rose from the grave, not just spiritually but physically. He really did die and He really did defy death itself, by being resurrected. It is deeply disturbing that you proclaim yourself to be a Christian, a Catholic, and yet do not believe that the resurrection is more than a story. This is to be taken literally by Christians. For almost 2000 years practically every Christian believed that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was literal, and had indeed happened. To not accept this, means to no longer be Christian. The resurrection is about the main belief that defines us for what we are: Christians. You are sounding much more like an Atheist than a Christian.-Braveheart
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.Do you believe in the divine inspiration of Scripture,
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.
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.and that Scripture stands supreme as the guiding point and source of truth for our faith?
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.Do you believe that Jesus was concieved by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of a Virgin?
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.
I believe, that Iesus Christus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. No man ever had sex with Mary, Jesus Christ was put in the womb, not through the normal procedures of sex, but through the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit did not cause Mary to conceive through supernatural means, then what man created Christ?-Braveheart
I think you mean death and ressurection.Do you believe that by the death of Jesus Christ mankind and God were reconciled and our sins were redeemed?
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.
Oh yes, these and more.Have you ever defended any of these contentions in debate with atheists and skeptics? Links?
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."[/quote]
You do not take anything literally, you are not a Christian. The bible makes it pretty clear as to the actual happenings of the resurrection, the immaculate conception, Christ's miracles. I think you would get along better with everyone else in the "A" room.-Braveheart
I am not afraid... I was born to do this.
Joan of Arc :2gun:
Peace if possible, truth at all costs.
Martin Luther
The Church of God she will not bend her knees
To the gods of this world though they promise her peace
She stands her ground
Stands firm on the Rock
Watch their walls tumble down when she lives out His love
Rich Mullins
Joan of Arc :2gun:
Peace if possible, truth at all costs.
Martin Luther
The Church of God she will not bend her knees
To the gods of this world though they promise her peace
She stands her ground
Stands firm on the Rock
Watch their walls tumble down when she lives out His love
Rich Mullins
- Slopeshoulder
- Banned
- Posts: 3367
- Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:46 pm
- Location: San Francisco
Re: Drawing Distinctions in Christianity
Post #26First, PLEASE learn to use the quote function.You do not take anything literally, you are not a Christian. The bible makes it pretty clear as to the actual happenings of the resurrection, the immaculate conception, Christ's miracles. I think you would get along better with everyone else in the "A" room.-Braveheart
Second , what you claim 1. is mere and unsupported opinion, 2. against what is taught in many many seminaries, promulgated by scholars, and held by many christians and clergy (are you going to purge them all?), and 3. proves my point about you folks regarding closed mindedeness and-or ignorance of anything above base-level exegesis and biblical theology. Arguing as you do is circular.
Third, it is also deeply offensive. Prove I am not christian and am an athiest or retract. (Translation: retract).
Fourth, prove I don't take anything literally. I take a lot literally. That has NO bearing on my status as a christian.
Laslty, readers note that, as a Jesuit friend of mine (catholic priest with 3 masters degrees and a ph.d.) told me 25 years ago, while in seminary, "Oh God, Catholic fundamentalists have it all!! They are literal and extremist regarding both bible and doctrine, to their shame and that of the church. Utterly screwed up and dangerous. God prserve us." His words. I never forgot them.
Re: Drawing Distinctions in Christianity
Post #27My favorite professor in seminary was probably the most liberal faculty member there; and I was one of the (tiny minority of) more conservative (moderate) students. Even though she and I were as far apart on many/most issues as anyone could possibly be, she had a way of communicating with "deconstructive criticism" (as opposed to "destructive criticism" or the condescending "constructive criticism"). As a member of the beleagered minority group, I noticed and appreciated her communication strategy, and consequently I learned more from her than from the other professors who were either (somewhat) closer to me theologically, or else farther apart in a contemptuous sort of way. While I haven't mastered the knack of deconstructive criticism myself, I hold it as a goal to strive for.Slopeshoulder wrote:...fundy extremists have called him liberal! Where does it stop?...
- Slopeshoulder
- Banned
- Posts: 3367
- Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:46 pm
- Location: San Francisco
Re: Drawing Distinctions in Christianity
Post #28Great distinctions, thanks.EduChris wrote:My favorite professor in seminary was probably the most liberal faculty member there; and I was one of the (tiny minority of) more conservative (moderate) students. Even though she and I were as far apart on many/most issues as anyone could possibly be, she had a way of communicating with "deconstructive criticism" (as opposed to "destructive criticism" or the condescending "constructive criticism"). As a member of the beleagered minority group, I noticed and appreciated her communication strategy, and consequently I learned more from her than from the other professors who were either (somewhat) closer to me theologically, or else farther apart in a contemptuous sort of way. While I haven't mastered the knack of deconstructive criticism myself, I hold it as a goal to strive for.Slopeshoulder wrote:...fundy extremists have called him liberal! Where does it stop?...
note that she has the advantage of a quality seminary student body, unlike some other populations we could name. So we have tougher slogging. And the flesh is weak.
EDIT: Ya know, I miss those div school days where students of different orientations could sit down, kick around ideas, share a common end-goal, respect each other, and share their thinking, where they land, etc. SO far removed from the kind of childish and weak damnation, exclusion, belligerence, arrogance and nonsense we get around here, where I estimate 90% wouldn't get accepted, pass the psych screen, or last a semester. Holy huddle indeed. Ignorance, arrogance, and unhinged-ness are not a good combination. But div school was great, disagreements and all. I used to be less liberal, and we had several scholarly evangelics at school, mostly within mainstream denominations. It's all good.
-
- Banned
- Posts: 327
- Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:30 pm
- Location: U.S.A.
Re: Drawing Distinctions in Christianity
Post #29Sorry about the quote thing, I never could figure it out... OK, I have one question for you. Do you believe that Jesus Christ died, and then 3 days later He miraculously rose from the dead? You are required to believe that as a Catholic. Oh, and one other thing. I don't care if you went to seminary. I know people who went to seminary at or around the time period you did, and it was a bad period. In fact, you going to seminary makes me less impressed, not more. Seminary at the time brought more people away from God than to Him, as you are a perfect example of.Slopeshoulder wrote:First, PLEASE learn to use the quote function.You do not take anything literally, you are not a Christian. The bible makes it pretty clear as to the actual happenings of the resurrection, the immaculate conception, Christ's miracles. I think you would get along better with everyone else in the "A" room.-Braveheart
Second , what you claim 1. is mere and unsupported opinion, 2. against what is taught in many many seminaries, promulgated by scholars, and held by many christians and clergy (are you going to purge them all?), and 3. proves my point about you folks regarding closed mindedeness and-or ignorance of anything above base-level exegesis and biblical theology. Arguing as you do is circular.
Third, it is also deeply offensive. Prove I am not christian and am an athiest or retract. (Translation: retract).
Fourth, prove I don't take anything literally. I take a lot literally. That has NO bearing on my status as a christian.
Laslty, readers note that, as a Jesuit friend of mine (catholic priest with 3 masters degrees and a ph.d.) told me 25 years ago, while in seminary, "Oh God, Catholic fundamentalists have it all!! They are literal and extremist regarding both bible and doctrine, to their shame and that of the church. Utterly screwed up and dangerous. God prserve us." His words. I never forgot them.
I am not afraid... I was born to do this.
Joan of Arc :2gun:
Peace if possible, truth at all costs.
Martin Luther
The Church of God she will not bend her knees
To the gods of this world though they promise her peace
She stands her ground
Stands firm on the Rock
Watch their walls tumble down when she lives out His love
Rich Mullins
Joan of Arc :2gun:
Peace if possible, truth at all costs.
Martin Luther
The Church of God she will not bend her knees
To the gods of this world though they promise her peace
She stands her ground
Stands firm on the Rock
Watch their walls tumble down when she lives out His love
Rich Mullins
- Slopeshoulder
- Banned
- Posts: 3367
- Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:46 pm
- Location: San Francisco
Re: Drawing Distinctions in Christianity
Post #30I already answered that. Yes, mystically, not literally. I affirm the doctrine. You just don't understand it.Braveheart wrote:OK, I have one question for you. Do you believe that Jesus Christ died, and then 3 days later He miraculously rose from the dead?
Oh no, it's only according to the simplistic cathechisms they publish. If you actually talk to real theologians (or behind closed doors with the sacred congregation), at a higher level, you don't have to believe as you do or what you do. You're wrong. Literalistic beliefs are not priveledged vs. mystical beliefs. The vatican is too smart for that.You are required to believe that as a Catholic.
I invite you to charge me with heresy. I'd love a free trip to Rome and a good chinwag with the sacred congregation. That would be a feast!
Where'd you get that nonsense? From some reactionary indoctrinator you've invested in? Are you a historian of seminary pedagogy?Oh, and one other thing. I don't care if you went to seminary. I know people who went to seminary at or around the time period you did, and it was a bad period. In fact, you going to seminary makes me less impressed, not more. Seminary at the time brought more people away from God than to Him,
It's the same now as when I went (1980's, and I went to a school that invented post-liberalism; it wasn't liberal), I still read the journals, keep up, etc. Hell, my wife got her three degrees just a few years ago, doing much work at BC, Weston Jesuit, and EDS seminaries, all catholic (plus BU, harvard, andover-newton on the protestant side). It's the same. You're wrong.
Except, yes, the 2nd tier catholic denominational seminaries have moved to the right, that much is true. I won't argue with that. But what is a bad time is subject to debate. I'd argue that the quality of priest and bishop has fallen precipitously. IMO these days many are clowns, company men, and closeted dress lovers. It's sad really.
Another unsubstantiated and uncivil claim.as you are a perfect example of.
Fact: Seminary brought me a lot closer to God after people like you had nearly killed the relationship. Really, gospel truth. I think of people like you as atheist makers.
Please do not EVER make a declaration about my faith, my religion, my relationship to God, or my status as a christian again. It is unjustified, unsubstantiated, and uncivil. If you disagree with a view, fine. But my faith is off limits. I think your beliefs are toxic, foolish and wrong; but I never say you're not christian or away from God. Not in public anyway, not on this forum.