Maybe The Bible Isn't The Cornerstone Of Christian Faith

[Amethyst]

Why are you arguing for True Christianity ? That's the point I was making - too many ex-fundie ex-christians are still making the same arguments that fundamentalists make. Fundamentalism is not the only form of Christianity!

 

Because if belief in one part of the religion is all that is required to be a member of that religion (in my case, I had wanted to believe in heaven but none of the rest of it), I would never have posted on this web site.

 

Because of the definition of Christianity that I was raised with, I realized that I was actually agnostic and not really Christian.

 

If we can pick whatever label we want, regardless of actual belief, then we might as well throw away ex-Christian.net, and call ourselves "Christian" for social acceptance purposes and gain back the acceptance of everyone who shunned us because we were honest about what we believed. Does everyone here really want that? I think if we did, we wouldn't be here.

 

I would personally rather be true to myself than lie to others about what I believe. To me, taking up a label and not really believing anything that makes up that label is really lying to yourself and others. I was raised to value honesty. It is a core value of what makes me "me". I am not willing to give that up just to be socially accepted. I would rather find acceptance among people who like me for who I am.

 

I tried liberal Christianity and realized how meaningless it was. If you take the meaning out of something by making it whatever you want to be, then it becomes only a shadow of its former self. You might as well do something else with your life instead.

[Evolution_beyond]

If we can pick whatever label we want, regardless of actual belief, then we might as well throw away ex-Christian.net, and call ourselves "Christian" for social acceptance purposes and gain back the acceptance of everyone who shunned us because we were honest about what we believed. Does everyone here really want that? I think if we did, we wouldn't be here.

 

That's silly. If you don't believe in Jesus then you can't be a Christian. If you don't believe in God, you certainly aren't.

Of course there are some beliefs that are central to Christianity and so you can't really call yourself a Christian if you don't have those beliefs.

Belief in God, belief that Jesus was the Son of God, belief that Jesus died for your sins and was resurrected. Those things are what defines a christian.

But taking all of the Bible totally literally - that is not a defining requirement for being a christian. Only fundamentalists will claim that.

 

I tried liberal Christianity and realized how meaningless it was. If you take the meaning out of something by making it whatever you want to be, then it becomes only a shadow of its former self. You might as well do something else with your life instead.

 

Music and art has touched my life more deeply than any mundane facts. Not all truths are literal - many of the deepest truths are symbolic in the way they have been expressed. That's not what I'd call meaningless.

 

I'm not defending liberal christianity. I think all forms of christianity are logically flawed and are dangerous to rationality and personal freedom.

 

But liberal christianity is as valid a form of christianity as fundamentalism is - and I think sometimes people think "christianity=fundamentalism" and it just ain't so.

[Amethyst]

If we can pick whatever label we want, regardless of actual belief, then we might as well throw away ex-Christian.net, and call ourselves "Christian" for social acceptance purposes and gain back the acceptance of everyone who shunned us because we were honest about what we believed. Does everyone here really want that? I think if we did, we wouldn't be here.

 

That's silly. If you don't believe in Jesus then you can't be a Christian. If you don't believe in God, you certainly aren't.

Of course there are some beliefs that are central to Christianity and so you can't really call yourself a Christian if you don't have those beliefs.

Belief in God, belief that Jesus was the Son of God, belief that Jesus died for your sins and was resurrected. Those things are what defines a christian.

But taking all of the Bible totally literally - that is not a defining requirement for being a christian. Only fundamentalists will claim that.

 

 

I never said one had to take ALL of the Bible literally to be defined as a Christian, just certain parts of it -- at least the basics. For example, the belief that Jesus is real and died for your sins. If there is no hell to save you from, then why did he die? You can't throw away a basic part of the religion, and yet many, if not most, people who call themselves liberal Christians DO throw away that part. Some also do not believe that Jesus was literally real and they also do not literally believe in the resurrection but that the resurrection was a symbol, and yet they call themselves Christians. I think that if a person does not at least believe in the core tenants of Christianity, they aren't a Christian. That is my point. We seem to agree on that.

 

I interpreted your argument as there does not have to be any literal belief to be Christian. But as we are both seeing, there does have to be at least a minimum standard of belief.

[Amethyst]

The other thing I disagree with is this:

 

Theoretically there is no reason why a Christian couldn't focus totally on Jesus as portrayed by the gospels and totally discount everything else in the Bible as the witterings of fairly ordinary believers - sometimes God inspired, but sometimes just plain wrong. Theoretically a Christian could even lift the teachings and traditions of the Church above the words of some ancient book, on the understanding that times change and peoples and societies grow and learn better - and that God/Jesus could still be inspiring and teaching men to a better understanding of things.

 

If you forget all the bad stuff and only focus on the good, aren't you still cherry picking? This is what most Christians these days do, ignore the bad stuff and focus only on the good. They want to throw out the fact that the Bible god did condone stoning of women and children, and does in fact condemn homosexual behavior (yet another reason I deconverted, because torturing people eternally for that is inherently unfair), and did also pass a set of laws in the OT that most modern Christians completely ignore. Is it still the same religion when it is modernized to the point in which it is only a shadow of its former self? I don't think so. I think it's a new religion and they should write their own "god-inspired" holy books. But perhaps that is just me.

[Evolution_beyond]

If we can pick whatever label we want, regardless of actual belief, then we might as well throw away ex-Christian.net, and call ourselves "Christian" for social acceptance purposes and gain back the acceptance of everyone who shunned us because we were honest about what we believed. Does everyone here really want that? I think if we did, we wouldn't be here.

 

That's silly. If you don't believe in Jesus then you can't be a Christian. If you don't believe in God, you certainly aren't.

Of course there are some beliefs that are central to Christianity and so you can't really call yourself a Christian if you don't have those beliefs.

Belief in God, belief that Jesus was the Son of God, belief that Jesus died for your sins and was resurrected. Those things are what defines a christian.

But taking all of the Bible totally literally - that is not a defining requirement for being a christian. Only fundamentalists will claim that.

 

 

I never said one had to take ALL of the Bible literally, just certain parts of it. For example, the belief that Jesus is real and died for your sins. If there is no hell to save you from, then why did he die? You can't throw away a basic part of the religion, and yet many, if not most, people who call themselves liberal Christians DO throw away that part. Some also do not believe that Jesus was literally real and they also do not literally believe in the resurrection but that the resurrection was a symbol, and yet they call themselves Christians. I think that if a person does not at least believe in the core tenants of Christianity, they aren't a Christian. That is my point. We seem to agree on that.

 

Yes we agree about that.

 

I was never a fundamentalist - and considered myself a liberal christian because I was tolerant of gays, didn't take all of the Bible literally etc.

 

But when I stopped believing that Jesus was God then I stopped calling myself a christian. Even when I stopped believing in Hell and started to believe in reincarnation instead - I called myself a cross between a pagan and a christian.

 

It does seem that when you get rid of some of the core beliefs of christianity then it is time to stop calling yourself a christian and begin to start exploring other religious ideas (which is exactly what I did before I finally became atheist)

 

I define 'liberal christian' as the opposite of fundamentalist so it is christians who don't take all the bible literally and have more tolerant morals because of that - but they still accept the core beliefs that Jesus died for our sins to save us from hell etc

 

But so-called Christians who don't believe in hell or the devil - and aren't even sure that Jesus ever existed. I guess I'd call them Universalists. And I think: "well, it's good that you can look at it so positively but - are you sure you are christian? Shouldn't you be calling yourself something else?"

 

but main point here was that fundamentalists are not the only kind of christian - that taking the Bible completely literally (I mean all of it - the way fundamentalists do) is not necessary for someone to be a christian. Compare for example how my Catholic wife seems to look at it.

 

That was my point - and it seems we agree on that also

[Evolution_beyond]

The other thing I disagree with is this:

 

Theoretically there is no reason why a Christian couldn't focus totally on Jesus as portrayed by the gospels and totally discount everything else in the Bible as the witterings of fairly ordinary believers - sometimes God inspired, but sometimes just plain wrong. Theoretically a Christian could even lift the teachings and traditions of the Church above the words of some ancient book, on the understanding that times change and peoples and societies grow and learn better - and that God/Jesus could still be inspiring and teaching men to a better understanding of things.

 

If you forget all the bad stuff and only focus on the good, aren't you still cherry picking? This is what most Christians these days do, ignore the bad stuff and focus only on the good. They want to throw out the fact that the Bible god did condone stoning of women and children, and does in fact condemn homosexual behavior (yet another reason I deconverted, because torturing people eternally for that is inherently unfair), and did also pass a set of laws in the OT that most modern Christians completely ignore. Is it still the same religion when it is modernized to the point in which it is only a shadow of its former self? I don't think so. I think it's a new religion and they should write their own "god-inspired" holy books. But perhaps that is just me.

 

yes but does OT law count now since Paul? That's the reason why christians don't give up pork or get circumcised. Paul said about all of that.

 

So that's why OT laws about homosexuals and stoning women and children don't apply anymore either.

 

(I know that's ludicrous - because even suggesting that stoning of women and children ever was ok is totally horrific. But many a christian would say that OT laws don't count anymore because of Christ)

[Amethyst]

It does seem that when you get rid of some of the core beliefs of christianity then it is time to stop calling yourself a christian and begin to start exploring other religious ideas (which is exactly what I did before I finally became atheist)

 

Me too. I explored Paganism/Wicca and various Eastern religions before I finally realized I was an agnostic atheist.

 

I define 'liberal christian' as the opposite of fundamentalist so it is christians who don't take all the bible literally and have more tolerant morals because of that - but they still accept the core beliefs that Jesus died for our sins to save us from hell etc

 

Same here.

 

But so-called Christians who don't believe in hell or the devil - and aren't even sure that Jesus ever existed. I guess I'd call them Universalists. And I think: "well, it's good that you can look at it so positively but - are you sure you are christian? Shouldn't you be calling yourself something else?"

 

Yep. That's what I'd say, either universalist, deist, or agnostic, depending on their philosophy. I think the main problem is that most people don't know what those various terms mean because they're not interested in reading about philosophy, so they keep calling themselves Christian because that's what they're familiar with.

 

but main point here was that fundamentalists are not the only kind of christian - that taking the Bible completely literally (I mean all of it - the way fundamentalists do) is not necessary for someone to be a christian. Compare for example how my Catholic wife seems to look at it.

 

That was my point - and it seems we agree on that also

 

Yes, we do!

[Amethyst]

yes but does OT law count now since Paul? That's the reason why christians don't give up pork or get circumcised. Paul said about all of that.

 

So that's why OT laws about homosexuals and stoning women and children don't apply anymore either.

 

(I know that's ludicrous - because even suggesting that stoning of women and children ever was ok is totally horrific. But many a christian would say that OT laws don't count anymore because of Christ)

 

Exactly my point! They pick and choose what they want to believe based on other verses.

[ShackledNoMore]

Jumping in late, whether you are a bible literalist, a fundamentalist, or a liberal xian, you're going to have to cherry pick and make some compromises. I don't know whether it's any more or less reasonable to largely ignore a "sacred" text because it is not palatable than it is to embrace something so whacked up as the bible and try to reconcile it as the ultimate word.

 

I lean toward taking you at your word if you say you are a xian rather than holding you to claiming inerrancy of the manual--it's not as though you're REALLY following all the scripture even if you are a literalist. Besides, as someone said earlier, catholics do hold the decree of the vatican and "sacred tradition" up there with the scripture.

[Jubilant]

yes but does OT law count now since Paul? That's the reason why christians don't give up pork or get circumcised. Paul said about all of that.

 

So that's why OT laws about homosexuals and stoning women and children don't apply anymore either.

 

(I know that's ludicrous - because even suggesting that stoning of women and children ever was ok is totally horrific. But many a christian would say that OT laws don't count anymore because of Christ)

 

Yeah, Paul, Paul says no law ...then why do these same folks have a problem with homosexuals in general and homosexuals getting married?

 

They claim that they aren't under the law anymore yet they sure as the sky is blue want to cherry pickimpose certain BIBLE laws on others.

 

BTW, there are certain sects in Christianity, Messianic Jews who do obey the OT law and they can cherry-pick scriptures from Paul to prove it.

[Mythra]

I think I'll call myself an Ultra-Liberal Christian. And only follow one verse in the entire bible. This one from 1 Corinthians:

 

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. But when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways.

 

So what if I was almost 50 years old before I could claim adulthood?

[Evolution_beyond]

Yeah, Paul, Paul says no law ...then why do these same folks have a problem with homosexuals in general and homosexuals getting married?

 

Yeah, but my wife doesn't agree with those parts of the Bible that condemn homosexuals. Which is what set me off on the whole line of thought that prompted me to start this thread.

 

So we've come full circle.

[Amethyst]

It sounds as if your wife is not a fundamentalist. It is always good to not have a rigid mind. I don't think most people here are angry with the type of Christian your wife is. In fact, some of us were where she is once.

 

However, I do think anger against fundamentalists is justified. It is fundamentalists who have done some of the most horrific crimes against humanity in history. The very kind of drivel they spew, the hate against homosexuals for example, is the same kind of thing that spurred the Crusades and the burning at the stake of women. I am afraid the same type of thing could occur in our time. A lot of people don't want to think it could, but really, human society has not changed much.

[GraphicsGuy]

Amethyst, I tend to agree with you. It seems that I can't go a few weeks without experiencing hate from some evangelical fundamentalist.

 

And it IS hate. They really hate us (ex-xians) because they cannot explain why nor believe that we really did leave the faith. They can't explain why or how things went bad for us. They say they love us and just want to help, but all they really care about is trying to justify their own continued beliefs even in the face of our counter-evidence.

 

So, they say we weren't really saved. They say we just wanted to sin without consequence. They say we weren't tough enough. They call us cowards. They refuse to listen unless you get really fucking angry at them. Then they just say that you're an angry person. They say you just wanted to live your own life and not listen to God.

 

Fuck. I'm really starting to hate them in return.

[Guest Marty]

yes but does OT law count now since Paul? That's the reason why christians don't give up pork or get circumcised. Paul said about all of that.

 

So that's why OT laws about homosexuals and stoning women and children don't apply anymore either.

 

I always wonder why Paul has more authority than jesus on the matter of OT law. Most xtians are not aware of Matt 5:17-19:

 

"Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law untill all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men to do so, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven".

[R. S. Martin]

GraphicsGuy, may I use your post to start another thread? I assume it's okay because you touch on a topic I want to rant about and it seems rather off-topic here (to me). Maybe I'll call it something like "Hatred the Fundies Call Love."

 

On topic, Amethyst, in response to your comment that if we can pick and choose what we want to believe, why have exC to begin with. Sometimes I think I could qualify as a Christian if I tried hard enough, but I just don't have the energy to go through with the farce. I believe that deep down being true to ourselves is what Jesus meant by his message but that Christians, starting with the NT writers themselves, twisted the whole thing. Robobrob on these forums is a Universalist. If I were more socially inclined I would probably be a universalist, too, since there is a church not too far from where I live.

 

I don't think it's possible to draw a sharp line around who is and is not Christian. I choose to go by what people identify as being. For academic purposes for studies such as what kind of beliefs cause what kind of political action, surveys can be done asking specific questions targeting specific beliefs. But I think that is different from what this thread is discussing.