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?

[Mithrae]

In a current thread someone complains that ‘Fundamentalist Atheists’ (whatever that means)... .

A while back I stumbled across a post from a few years ago by one of our more prolific posters which perhaps gives a particularly candid example of what fundamentalism in a critic might look like, in particular the last sentence:

• I most certainly do agree with the most ardent fundamentalists. I hold that the Biblical Canon must either be defended as the verbatim word of God, or it is utterly useless to hold it up as being the "Word of God" at all. . . .
  
  This is why I agree with the ardent fundamentalists. . . .
  
  Yes, I do agree with the ardent Christian fundamentalists. . . .
  
  So I accept the ardent fundamentalist's claim that the Bible has to be the infallible "Word of God", and reject it as such. . . .
  
  So I agree with the ardent Christian Fundamentalists. With Christianity it truly is "all or nothing", and since I can clearly see that it's not all true, then obviously none of it is true.

What, exactly, do Non-Fundamental Christian believe that is DIFFERENT from Fundamentalist Christian beliefs?

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism
  Fundamentalism usually has a religious connotation that indicates unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs.[1] However, fundamentalism has come to be applied to a tendency among certain groups–mainly, although not exclusively, in religion–that is characterized by a markedly strict literalism as it is applied to certain specific scriptures, dogmas, or ideologies, and a strong sense of the importance of maintaining ingroup and outgroup distinctions,[2][3][4][5] leading to an emphasis on purity and the desire to return to a previous ideal from which advocates believe members have strayed. Rejection of diversity of opinion as applied to these established "fundamentals" and their accepted interpretation within the group often results from this tendency.[6]

Any group or ideology can have members with fundamentalist tendencies, and likewise anyone can have erroneous opinions without necessarily being a fundamentalist. My upbringing was dominated by very fundamentalist views, but I wouldn't say that I was a fundamentalist even in those few teenage years when I accepted them all: I was still learning and thinking and ultimately questioning, and since I didn't take contrary views on authority ("science says so-and-so" in the case of evolution for example) that process took time.

Some things I'd look for which suggest a Christian is probably not a fundamentalist:
> Recognizing that the bible has plenty of errors
> Affirming the primacy of using modern science and historiology, where applicable, in pursuit of knowledge
> Recognizing truths and seeking common ground with other religions and worldviews, rather than emphasizing differences

Some things I'd look for which suggest a Christian might be a fundamentalist:
> Absolute insistence on demonstrably false dogmas (eg. biblical inerrancy)
> Outright rejection of evolution (and particularly Young Earth Creationism)
> Viciously attacking other Christian sects / other religions (eg. as "demonic")

Amusingly once upon a time we had a member who was a liberal Christian in his views, but rather fundamentalist about those opinions; viciously attacking more conservative/evangelical Christian views, insisting quite dogmatically that biblical prophecy is nothing more than "speaking truth to power" despite the obvious predictive intentions of many passages and so on

Which position speaks for Christianity in general?

None of them. Does that question even make sense? Which position speaks for Americans in general? Which position speaks for scientists in general? Whether religion is viewed from the angle of a community/cultural tradition, or as an attempt at uncovering deeper truths through experience, spiritualism and philosophy, attempting to pigeonhole Christianity into a single correct or definitive version would be an effort seeming in itself to be guided by fundamentalist assumptions that there is 'right' religion and 'wrong' religion. Fundamentalist approaches are less reasonable, by definition, but fundamentalist Christians are still Christians; fundamentalist atheists are still atheists; fundamentalist global warming advocates are still global warming advocates; no matter how embarrassing each of these may be to their more reasonable peers.

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

What, exactly, do Non-Fundamental Christian believe that is DIFFERENT from Fundamentalist Christian beliefs?

Pretty much everything to do with Christianity it looks like to me …!

The biblical version of "God" opening up a firmament/dome of air in the water of the universe in the first Creation Myth … that seems to be gone.

The Jehovah version of "God" in the second Creation Myth creating the first human male from mud and the first female from his rib 4,000 years before Jesus visited the planet of his creation through the uterus of the Blessed Virgin Mary … that seems to be out the stained-glass window too.

Filling the dome with the water from outside to drown most of "Creation" … we're not having that either.

Hurling fire and brimstone down on gay people and turning a woman into a block of salt to explain why the Dead Sea is so salty … has to be "metaphor", can't be real.

And all the way through burning bushes and plagues and flying chariots and superheroes with long hair and the Holy Ghost siring Jesus on the Blessed Virgin Mary to the legions of angels exterminating non-Christians.

It seems to me the only major straw certain almost-Atheist Christians still clutch at, is the so-called "Resurrection" of their possibly fictional Leader.

[SallyF]

This one's gone ….

[SallyF]

Nope … this one's out the stained-glass window too ….

[SallyF]

Can't sell this for a whole bunch of reasons … best we call it "figurative".

[Divine Insight]

Nope … this one's out the stained-glass window too ….

I've always wondered why God had to start with a rib from Adam in order to make Eve?

Was his magic getting rusty? Or was God just getting lazy?

I mean, why start with dust when it's so much easier to start with a rib, right?

I make no apologies when I say that these ancient fables are just plain silly.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

As a fundy I think non Fundy Christians find something embarrassing in the Bible.

I think the non fundys forget that they believe a man died and rose from the dead in real time in history. Or do they still believe that?

[Mithrae]

I've always wondered why God had to start with a rib from Adam in order to make Eve?

Was his magic getting rusty? Or was God just getting lazy?

I mean, why start with dust when it's so much easier to start with a rib, right?

I make no apologies when I say that these ancient fables are just plain silly.

Perhaps you have never been in love? The story has it that man and beasts were made from the ground, but woman was made of better stuff, from living flesh. For those who struggle with grasping subtleties in meaning, the theme is spelled out quite plainly in the twenty-fourth verse; it's discussing why women can hold such a powerful bond with men, even moreso than their own parents:

• 7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. . . .
  
  19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. . . . But for the man no suitable helper was found. . . .
  
  23 The man said,
  “This is now bone of my bones
  and flesh of my flesh;
  she shall be called ‘woman,’
  for she was taken out of man.�
  24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. 25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

No doubt there are some folk who, searching for scientific data in the comparison of a loved one to a summer's day, find only the silliness with which they are choosing to approach the literature; who given half a chance would loudly and proudly voice their 'correction' that a chap's better half is neither 50% of his body nor quantifiably superior. But I suspect that many folk - even among the religious, with all the funny things that can sometimes do to one's reading ability - are able to digest the story without so spectacularly missing the point.

[SallyF]

24 Then Jehovah rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven;

25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

Oh dear, the God of Love hurling fire and brimstone down on gay men and women and children and heterosexual people, not long after He had filled the Dome of Heaven and drowned millions of people who had never heard of him - along with the animals who may or may not have been homosexual but didn't follow ANY version of "God" … we shall have to try and make this look like something it's not too.