ogilvy Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 i havent been on this forum long, or been an ex-christian very long either. but what i dont get is that so many of the people whose posts i've read on lots of different topics mention they always disagreed with aspects of the bible, or thought the bible was man's word, not God's. in that case, if they didnt believe the bible, why be a christian at all? it doesnt make sense to me to think of oneself as a christian and not believe the bible, because our knowledge of christianity is FROM the bible. where else could we get the knowledge of it from?? if some parts of the bible are accepted as Gods word, and others not, that doesnt make sense either, because it would mean you just accept what you personally agree with. in that case its like your religion is based on your own opinion, not on the bible. if you dont believe it to be God's word, why take notice of any of it? what i dont get is, if you do believe the bible is God's word, then whether you approve of things in it, like certain prohibitions and rules, is not relevant, because if its true, we should take it on simply because God being God would know what is best. and if we have a problem with some aspect of it, then its we who are wrong, not God. otherwise you're in the position of being above God, whiich doesnt make sense. God being God, would know better. i'm not saying the bible IS God's word. i'm just saying, if you didnt think it was, why did you join the religion based on it. if you did think it was God's word, how can you reject its teachings as being wrong? just trying to be logical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alice Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 Pippa, I think the kinds of responses you are commenting on here, cover a whole range of experiences. Some people accepted the notion that 'The Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God' and then struggled internally because they did not like certain aspects of the book. Literal Christianity 'uses' all kind of methods to keep people within the fold, even when they are doubting aspects of the story and wanting to reject some of the teachings ... methods such as fear of hell or fear of a loss of community and well being. As to why anyone should call themselves a Christian if they no longer or never have considered the Bible to be the actual word of God ... I think this reasoning is based very much on fundamentalist thinking - the black and white, all or nothing mindset. Who says a Christian MUST accept the Bible as the actual 'word of God'? With any book - I value what I value. I am a social worker. There are some social work text books I value more than others, there isn't a single one where I agree with every word ... but I call myself a social worker. I am a social worker based on the knowledge, experience and qualifications I have accrued and the role I take on in the workplace. At the very least 'Christian' is not a 'Biblical' term, so I don't think fundamentalist christians have the right to say that only those who believe it is the actual word of God can call themselves 'Christian'. They can hardly base this belief on the Bible! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 To add an historical 'footnote' - That was the reason the creed was bashed out... to make a 'benchmark' for being a Christian... if you didn't agree with the Creed, you were not a Christian at best, or a Heretic Apostate at worst... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ogilvy Posted January 28, 2008 Author Share Posted January 28, 2008 but our knowledge of Christ comes from the bible, thats what i'm saying. so if you wanted to be a christian, wouldnt you logically base your beliefs on the bible which is has the account of Christs teachings? or do some people have a looser idea of being a christian. sorry i forgot about that. i should have remembered because i vaguely thought of myself as a christian before i actually converted, because i vaguely believed in Christ. but i still cant see the sense in bypassing the bible if someone wanted to be a serious follower of him, becos the bible is where all the info is. and then, if you bypass all that you don't agree with, what would be left, and what reason to call oneself a christian except in loose terms. like a christian as opposed to a muslem. maybe what i mean is, a disciple of Christ. would anyone agree that to be a disciple of Jesus you would need to base it on his teachings in the bible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ogilvy Posted January 28, 2008 Author Share Posted January 28, 2008 Pippa, I think the kinds of responses you are commenting on here, cover a whole range of experiences. Some people accepted the notion that 'The Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God' and then struggled internally because they did not like certain aspects of the book. Literal Christianity 'uses' all kind of methods to keep people within the fold, even when they are doubting aspects of the story and wanting to reject some of the teachings ... methods such as fear of hell or fear of a loss of community and well being. As to why anyone should call themselves a Christian if they no longer or never have considered the Bible to be the actual word of God ... I think this reasoning is based very much on fundamentalist thinking - the black and white, all or nothing mindset. Who says a Christian MUST accept the Bible as the actual 'word of God'? With any book - I value what I value. I am a social worker. There are some social work text books I value more than others, there isn't a single one where I agree with every word ... but I call myself a social worker. I am a social worker based on the knowledge, experience and qualifications I have accrued and the role I take on in the workplace. At the very least 'Christian' is not a 'Biblical' term, so I don't think fundamentalist christians have the right to say that only those who believe it is the actual word of God can call themselves 'Christian'. They can hardly base this belief on the Bible! Alice, what do you mean by a 'christian'? Grandpa what do you mean by it also? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alice Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 When I say 'Christian' I mean anyone who uses this label to define the way they live their life. If someone chooses to add either 'nominal' or 'active' to their use of the term 'Christian', this would impact on my understanding of their use of the term (in so far as how much they feel it affects the way they live their life) There are more sources of knowledge about Christ than those few gospels that made it into the canon we now know as the Bible. Many Chrsitians would look to these sources as well, many Christians base their knowledge of 'Christ' on personal revelation, church teachings, the experiences of other 'followers. THe idea that everything you need to know to travel the same spiritual journey as Jesus is contained in the Bible is a very narrow and particular interpretation of Christianity that currently holds sway in America but is not 'how it is everwhere or how it has always been'. For myself I use 'fundamentalist christian' to denote a particaulr harsh and extreme kind of christian, 'literalist christian' - to denote everyone else who thinks the Bible is the actual word of God and to be taken literally, 'transitional christian' to denote christians that are incorporating some universalist/liberal ideas into a previously literalist framework and 'liberal' or 'universalist' christian to denote those with an entirely different world view and approach to the Bible, these range from those who still regard Jesus as divine to those who are basically humanists who find vlaue in the teachings ascribed to the man Jesus, but for whatever reason still call themselves 'Christians.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ogilvy Posted January 28, 2008 Author Share Posted January 28, 2008 When I say 'Christian' I mean anyone who uses this label to define the way they live their life. If someone chooses to add either 'nominal' or 'active' to their use of the term 'Christian', this would impact on my understanding of their use of the term (in so far as how much they feel it affects the way they live their life) There are more sources of knowledge about Christ than those few gospels that made it into the canon we now know as the Bible. Many Chrsitians would look to these sources as well, many Christians base their knowledge of 'Christ' on personal revelation, church teachings, the experiences of other 'followers. THe idea that everything you need to know to travel the same spiritual journey as Jesus is contained in the Bible is a very narrow and particular interpretation of Christianity that currently holds sway in America but is not 'how it is everwhere or how it has always been'. For myself I use 'fundamentalist christian' to denote a particaulr harsh and extreme kind of christian, 'literalist christian' - to denote everyone else who thinks the Bible is the actual word of God and to be taken literally, 'transitional christian' to denote christians that are incorporating some universalist/liberal ideas into a previously literalist framework and 'liberal' or 'universalist' christian to denote those with an entirely different world view and approach to the Bible, these range from those who still regard Jesus as divine to those who are basically humanists who find vlaue in the teachings ascribed to the man Jesus, but for whatever reason still call themselves 'Christians.' thanks for that. i did have a narrower view of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sophronia Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 In my case, Pippa, I became a Christian because I liked the idea of peaceful-hippie type Jesus and his teachings. I liked the idea that God was willing to suffer and die for us, kind of a Gandhian thing I thought. That was the basis for my conversion. Then I had to deal with the Bible. To be quite frank I always had trouble believing it was the inerrant Word of God, because I know how books are put together, and feel that if God had a word for us he would choose a more reliable method of communication. However, since I had decided to believe in Jesus, I attempted to learn about the Bible and rationalize it as Christians do. I did enjoy studying it because I like books very much. However, for various reasons it did not work out. If you would like to read my current thoughts on the Bible, you may endure my blog here: http://wordworkshop.blogspot.com/2008/01/o...-accepting.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 ...if they didnt believe the bible, why be a christian at all? it doesnt make sense to me to think of oneself as a christian and not believe the bible, because our knowledge of christianity is FROM the bible. where else could we get the knowledge of it from?? Can speak only for myself but... ...to me (and to most German christians I know) the message of christianity was basically just "Jesus was a kind man and a role model, we should strive to be at least a little bit like him". No serious stuff about "son of gawd" and "judgment day" and "eternal hell" and all the other crap. Of course that's pick-and-choose christianity... but every brand of the cult is, and honestly, I'd rather have that than rabid "every word is true" morontheism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts