wildernesse

From Tricia's thread in Msc. Religious discussions (edited because I can't use UBB code)

My biggest problem with the criticism of “cafeteria Christianity” here on the board, is the answer to Michael’s question:

Once people start picking and choosing the parts the like/dislike who gets to say what is the correct interpretation?

The answer is atheists, apparently. And the correct interpretation is a literal one. I’m not saying that it isn’t—I don’t know, but I won’t say that the only true message is the literal version. Non-believers telling Christians which interpretation is correct—or that there can be no interpretation or placement in cultural perspective drives me up a wall. Christianity exists outside of fundy-land, whether you respect that belief or not. I think that Tricia and a lot of people are faced with the false dilemma of either fundamentalist Christianity or non-belief.

I apologize for being tiresome and thinking out loud. I’m not trying to make excuses or convert anyone—I’m just trying to clarify what I think about my faith. If you think that I’m a lost cause, you don’t have to respond to me.

Now, I don’t mind being called on what I believe and asked how my thoughts apply to specific incidents within the Bible. I could be wrong, contradictory, or just plain dumb.
I appreciate your questions and examples, ex-creationist—they make me consider points that I may too easily gloss over. I would like to reply to your posts, but it will probably be later today—I must do something other than sit at this desk.

I have heard that once a theist says that their faith is the reason that they think the way they do, then they’ve “lost” the debate. I’m not here to win or lose anything. I’m here to enjoy the company and explore what my faith means and what it teaches me. I’m still working on my beliefs—discovering more about myself and the rest of the world.

--tiba

[ July 20, 2002: Message edited by: wildernesse ]

[ July 20, 2002: Message edited by: wildernesse ]</p>

southernhybrid

I heard that! I went from fundamentalist to liberal Christian and continued to atheism over a period of about ten years. I think it's cool if some people feel more comfortable with organized religion as long as they are tolerant and respectful of those who believe differently.

I have a real hard time always being tolerant of rabid atheists who can't even consider that religion may have lots of benefits for some groups or individuals. For example, right here where I live, several of the larger churches contribute to a free health clinic. That clinic is the only health care that many local residents have available. It is done without any mention of god. I know because I once did volunteer work there. I've seen many examples of people using their religious beliefs in positive ways.

Maybe I'm a minority here, but I think that good character is far more admirable than being religious or godless.

Gurdur

Correct !
You forgot to mention that all atheists also pick and choose what they believe in (values and philosophical approaches) ---- something that rather invalidates the "cafeteria" criticism, no ?
Hey, you're not being tiresome at all.

Stick around and be heard ! Please !

Good on you !

And despite some atheists here who would put Jerry Falwell to shame for bigotry, I personally hope you'll stick around !
Damn right !

'course, we can argue about what makes eventually for a good character (choices of values), but the basic thrust is great !

Edited to add:
Best regards,
Gurdur The Hard-Line But Tolerant Atheist


[ July 20, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

SharonDee

Hi, tiba.

Obviously, I can't speak for the atheists who're apparently trying to pin you down. I'm sorry this topic is getting you frustrated.

But as an atheist, I can say that we don't get to tell you what is the correct interpretation. We just don't understand how you Christians know which parts of the Bible to adhere to and which parts to wave away as inapplicable. And apparently there's also dissension within the Christian ranks on this very issue, since so many of the splits among Protestant congregations are over Biblical interpretation.

My personal opinion is that fundamentalist Christianity based on "inerrant" scriptures has been the faith's worst enemy. If the Bible is regarded as a mere collection of man's historical comprehension of God, then I don't see a problem with using (as Catholics do, IIRC) tradition as a guideline.

Using the Bible as a way to know God's will seems to be an all-or-nothing proposition. If I were still a Christian, I would have to discard the Bible altogether in order to feel good about being one.

But what do I know?

In the end, though, YOU are the Christian and you know from whence your faith comes.

(I apologize for the rambling nature of this post. I'm just throwing my thoughts out there, too. )

Mad Kally

In Tricia's thread I was sincerely confused by all the Christian interpretations of what is true and what isn't. I'm not familiar with all these different sects of xianity or what they do or don't believe. I was only taught that the bible was the literal word of god. Every word of it was the Truth. The world was created in six 24 hour days.

How could I possibly tell a Christian which one is correct? If any at all...

Rev. Joshua

The dissension is our first clue that it's dangerous to be militant about our views since there's a very real possibility that we're wrong.

Nevertheless, by holding themselves accountable to the larger Christian community of which they are a part (their local congregation, their clergy, the tradition of biblical interpretation) and likewise seeking a life of prayerful reflection on the Scriptures; a person of faith can generally determine if their interpretation is a fair and responsible one.

For me the key is developing a consistent hermeneutic that allows me to apply the same principles of interpretation to any passage of Christian Scripture or doctrine.

Joshua

Mad Kally

Pardon my ignorance, but what does that mean?

BibleBelted

wildernesse,

I have absolutely no problem with your positions as you have stated them. Based on that, if we were to become acquainted in real life, the subject of religion might never come up. If it did there should be no reason we couldn't discuss it amicably.

Should I catch you threatening me or anyone else with an eternal fondue skinny-dip because of not believing in flying messiahs and political position x, then we might have a disagreement.

Conversely, atheists should bear in mind that disbelieving in flying messiahs and political position x is not a pre-condition for granting respect to others.

I am virulently opposed to religious fundamentalism of all stripes, but not to theism per se.

Does this pass the Gurder test?

Pitshade

Why is this here? Things that are here should be creepy, slimy and scuttle along the ground and up the walls. Off with you...

pescifish

This is something I've been struggling with since becoming more active here. I don't begrudge any individual who finds that a particular belief or social structure helps them get through this life. Secular humanism as portrayed in the articles I've read here at Infidels and through Internet searches seems to "fit" the life I would like to lead. This describes the kind of cafeteria style approach I have always had toward religion. I've always trusted my own personal gut feeling about morality, beliefs and spirituality.

But I one of the parts that I personally like in the secular humanism model presented is an aspect of tolerance. I guess my own tolerance has started to finally overcome the surprise at finding so many atheists here seem to be angry and full of hate. Either that or I'm just getting used to it; it's been slow going for me, though.