Yellum Notnef

Why aren`t ALL Christians considered fundies?

How come believing all the wild tales of Noah,Adam & Eve,Moses and Jesus make you a "fundy",but just believing the tales of Jesus makes you "liberal"?

How are the stories of Jesus` miracles,resurrection and trip to heaven any less bizarre, completely unproven and FUNDAMENTAL to the Christian faith than those of Noah,Moses and Adam & Eve?

"Liberal" Christianity seems like a sinking ship that has to keep throwing embarrassing weight overboard to stay afloat and it looks like the only weight left they have to toss is Jesus` divinity.

Arrowman

This is a subject which interests me also.

First off, I agree 100% with what strawberry wrote.

Which position is more "rational"? Well, both liberal and fundy positions are irrational because they require belief in things for which there is no objective evidence, but the fundy position requires much more literal belief in many more specific things which are directly contradicted by the evidence and experience we have. It is one thing to believe that some guy called Jesus rose from the dead (no evidence for, but no evidence against either) - quite another to believe, for example, in a literal Noachian Flood (tons of evidence against).

I don't think the fundy position is more "intellectually honest". I think it is more intellectually honest to see the Bible as allegory (or the documented experiences of an ancient people in their interactions with God - some of which may not be exactly literally accurate) than to cling desperately to the literal truth of the Bible despite all evidence to the contrary.

That said, I must agree with Fenton Mulley that Is that a contradiction of what I said earlier? Well, as an atheist it's difficult for me to express any great support for any form of Christianity and yes, I do think it's all BS and I do agree that liberal Christianity is just what Fenton says. But at the same time I would be less surprised, on my death, to meet the liberal Christian God face to face, that to see Yahweh.

I can imagine myself being a liberal Christian. I cannot imagine myself being a fundy.

The world wouldn't be such a terrible place if all Christians were liberals. It's the fundies who cause the most trouble. Unfortunately, it seems that fundy numbers are on the rise relative to the liberals. I believe this is because fundy Christianity is "easier". It gives you nice clear rules (and a rule book) to live by. You don't have to think. You just follow the rules. Liberal Christianity, BS though it may be at heart, is at least a little "harder" because it has a less precise set of rules, a less clear specification of "God" and places just a little more responsibility on the individual to make his/her own decisions.

Liberal Christianity in many ways is almost indistinguishable from agnosticism. I think that is why many people who really, really want a God of their very own, and rules to follow, are drawn to the more fundy denominations.

I think it's sad that when I visit my ex-in-laws' Anglican church, there's about 30 people there and none of them are under the age of 50 - while the Christadelphian church down the road gathers 100+ people, many of whom are younger and with children, on your average Sunday. Anglicans don't scare me. Christadelphians do.

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Arrowman ]</p>

Liquidrage

I was a liberal Christian for a few years in the teens.

Why I kept religion then was because I had always been told it was true. The religion has a few quirks to it that help it hold believers.

One of the more common ones is the concept that doubting is wrong. I only went to chruch until I was about 12. But when I did go I heard that doubt was for the weak of faith. It was basically a sin. No, of course by the time I was 14 or so, I just could not keep the pseudo-fundamental teachings I had been taught, but I also couldn't doubt because it was wrong. So I morphed God into something I could keep.

Another reason was for meaning. It was nice thinking that if you prayed maybe you could "convince" someone that held the power to do anything.
"Oh God. Please please please let me get laid tonight"... etc

There is also the fact that the Bible is an ambiguous text. Because of this, it allows for those that morph god to keep the religion.

In a related note I'd like to bring up something that was said earlier by Strawberry.
This is similiar to the morphing of the religion I mentioned earlier. The Jesus many people belive in isn't the Jesus from the Bible. To them Jesus is 100% love. He is only good.
A lot of people feel the OT is full of good and bad, but the NT is allmost all good. It's just not true. Jesus had a little bit of mean streak. Not quite OT-esque. But it was still there.
Of course the Jesus we picture is one running around playing soccer with kids whilst carrying a Carebear on each shoulder.

I blame this on the Bible is just too damn big for most people to actually read. Most Xians I know have never even tried to read it. They just take the general peace and love concept and hope when they die they go to heaven. And thats why they keep it.

ex-idaho

While fundies scare the hell out of me most of the time I do respect their stance.

The ones that refuse medical treatment for themselves and thier children disgust me but I have to admit that atleast they stand by their beliefs no matter how dangerous or downright stupid.

The ones that will shy away from every vice and avoid swearing crack me up but I have to give them credit for holding true to their convictions.

When they turn their beliefs on me and the rest of society is when I draw the line. Why can't more of them be like the Amish or the Quakers. How about taking a "you do your thing and I'll do mine" attitude.?

Seeker196

That's why we like libs.

But if a lib still believes that if we die without accepting the Big G, we'll spend eternity 'seperated from god' (this is a bad thing I guess...), or some similar revision of Hell, than shouldn't they in fact be 'in our faces' about it?

I mean, lets say I recieved some incredible revelations (blow on the head...?) and became totally convinced that you would suffer forever if you didn't accept G.

Don't I now have a moral obligation to go out and literally spend every waking moment, by any means necessary, to convert people?

I guess what I saying is that even the fundies are being pretty cruel to us if they really think there is a hell, I mean I'd be out there with the sandwich board all the time if I really believed...

Marduk

“But aren't the fundamentalists more 'intellectually honest' than the mainstream?”

I don’t see how, to be a fundy you must (or at least I would) have to force myself to pretend to believe things I know are nonsense: a 500 year old drunk put all the animals in the world on a wooden boat, the Earth is only 6000 years old, the “10 Commandments” version of the Exodus, or even the basic premise that the creator of the entire Universe makes shady real estate transactions with nomadic barbarian on some obscure planet trillions of miles from even the middle of one Galaxy.

The liberals, with their attempt to keep the ‘spirit’ of the faith alive in modern times by ignoring the more primitive jibber jabber, and keeping the ‘envision some higher good as a moral example’ seem more honest to me. Check out Joseph Campbell’s “Power of Myth” He applauds the liberal Christians for trying to update the faith for a modern era and condemns the fundys for trying to practice an ancient ritual 2000 years out of date. A good book anyway.

Tercel

As a liberal, how can I not respond to this?

'Cos we're smart, loving, caring, humble, charitable and likeable? ...or were you simply referring to the self-centred reason of me not condemning you to a burning hell for all eternity for your unbelief?

No. Fundamentalism is one big disaster intellectually speaking. The inability to provide a solid foundation (or any for that matter) for the idea of the Bible being the Inerrant Word of God Which Must Always Be Taken Literally combined with the inevitable tendency to pick and choose proof-verses (while of course denying that they are doing any such thing) is just plain silly.

Well if you're looking for easy answers to all the world's problems then obviously fundamentalism's the place to go. How can the liberal's admission that they don't know everything ever be seen as less intellectually honest than the fundie's assertion that they do?

I have to disagree entirely. Two questions:
1. What responses can the Fundy give for his belief in the Inerrant Word of God?
2. What responses can the Fundy give for his belief (in Christianity) that the Liberal cannot?
Answers:
1. 'I just feel that it's true'.
2. There aren't any.

As a liberal Christian I have given quite a number of different reasons before to people as to why I believe. Those that come to mind now include: Philosophical considerations/natural theology eg Cosmological arguments, Moral arguments, Consciousness arguments etc; Evidentiary considerations eg personal testimonies/autobiographies concerning religious experiences with the supernatural eg healings, the demonic, near death experiences, angelic protection etc; Personal Gain considerations eg Pascal's Wager in its various less unsound versions; Historical considerations eg what seems historically the best explanation for the origins of Christianity; Arguments from Authority, ie my respect for the brilliance of many historic Christians and many Christians I know in the present; and of course my own religious feelings (yes I do 'just feel that it's true').
I've probably missed out a few things in that list, but I'm sure you get the picture.


I have to agree with ManM, I think historic/traditional Christianity would qualify under what we now class as "Liberal".

Answers to Questions:
Yes. The liberal Christians make no giant leaps of presuppositional "faith" like the fundies do.

??? I'm not sure I entirely get that question. It is an interesting cultural artifact certianly, but why should we abandon it and how is it "unrelated" to our "vague" (?) idea of a loving God?