• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

How Can One Be Religious But Not A Fundamentalist?

Unless taken as allegorical , and the attitude that 'If everyone believed in and carried out what Jesus preached then the narrow doorway would prove to be plenty wide enough for all.' as a friend of mine put it, accepted, it makes the concept of a 'Universal and Catholic' church a heresy or at least a nonsense?
 
hospitaller said:
Whatever we believe about the divinity of Christ, he certainly believed himself to be God incarnate, (for debates on same go to: http://www.beliefnet.com or read "Was Christ God? by Zodiathes, for starters).

serious question here, not trying to be a trouble-maker.........what is it that makes you think that Christ believed this? And please don't say "what's written in the bible".

What historical sources do we have for anything Jesus said? I have looked high and low across the net, and it seems to me that ALL we know is that a man named Jesus was a Jewish trouble maker around the time of 1AD and was executed by the Romans.

A Christian I was having a debate with once told me that there was more independent evidence of Jesus' life than there is of Julius Caesar's.

Can anywhere point me towards any URLs that take this subject on?

Found an interesting one here myself.
 
Bob Price does bring up some interesting points. His book 'Deconstructing Jesus' is well worth a look, but he does like his theological jargon.
 
Is it proof of works, redemption through acceptance, or begging for forgiveness, or some more arbitary method. Do you have to be good, smart, or 'special?'

No - apparently all you have to do is believe. But not many people do!

Why are people so dismissive of the oral tradition these days? Is it some sort of assumed predominance of the written text?

I have to agree wholeheartedly. The first Christians had no "New Testament". There are a lot of bibliolaters knocking about today who place the veracity of the text above that which it describes.

EZ, if I have an agenda, it is not that truth be told, but that fact be not blurred by mere opinion on matters on which many are often mistaken.

the concept of a 'Universal and Catholic' church a heresy or at least a nonsense?

It is a nonsense in the sense that Constantine established it - mass forced baptism etc. Also a nonsense, I reckon most Catholics would agree, that the RC is the "one true church". However, there is the interesting idea of Universalism (all will be saved eventually), and also Matthew Chapter 7 whereby those who claim to have known Christ and followed him are told "I never knew you: depart from me". I don't think it's contradictory - it's just that I ain't read enough on it yet to have an opinion. (A good policy IMHO ;) )
I do reckon, however, that the Universality of the Church is believed by most lay people to transcend denomination. It's the head honchos who dispute over issues that the average church-goer is concerned little with.

Good link Samorobin, especially the C.S. Lewis references. Price seems to be as desperate not to believe as he claims Lewis was to believe!
I don't know that Christian apologists belive Christ to have been a "supernatural savior", as Price puts it. That belief was actually an early "heresy" (that Christ was a supernatural as opposed to human being). His initial problem seems to be with all of the supernatural phenomena surrounding Christ. I've seen more supernatural phenomena in one issue of the Fortean Times than in a gospel account. The guy obviously is not an FT reader! Hold on... "And why should we believe that God or Nature used to be in the business of doing things that do not happen now?" No - definitely not! :D

Anyway, one has to respect his opinion (devoid of historical fact as it ironically is!) which is basically that of C.S. Lewis turned on its head (see "Mere Christianity" - haven't time to explain it here, but there's more to it than Price says). His opinions are definitive statements with no actual evidence provided apart from vague phrases like:
"conservative New Testament scholars admit he may as easily mean" - would a name be too much to ask?
"But much is in fact preChristian" how long is this piece of string?
:confused:
Also, I never knew that Samson or Enoch were revered as gods by the Jews, as Price claims.
And a very poor evangelical apologist he must have been if he has to ask "why does the earliest gospel crucifixion account spin out the whole terse narrative from quotes cribbed without acknowledgement from Psalm 22?" - the man obviously knows little or nothing about Jewish belief and writing of that time.
When I read "Why does 1 Peter have nothing more detailed than Isaiah 53 to flesh out his account of the sufferings of Jesus?" I really doubt this guy's sincerity! I mean, was he really an evangelical? Never heard of Messianic prophecies and their use by early Christian apologists? (who were evidently much more informed than Price) - the same goes for Matthew.

I would go on, but they're going to lock the building soon. In the meantime , here's the AntiPrice :D
 
Not sure if this is the right thread, but here goes...

Fighting the 'contraceptive mentality'

Families with more than 10 children are becoming the norm among a group of traditionalist US Christians. The so-called Quiverfull families believe they are carrying out God's work, and providing a new generation of moral leaders. The BBC's religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott went to Illinois to meet some of them.

The way Psalm 127 talks about children has an almost military sound.
It describes them as "an inheritance, and arrows in the hands of a mighty warrior," adding, "happy is he whose quiver is full of them
".

Many Quiverfull families do indeed sense looming battles for Christians, and often see their children as potential future leaders in fighting them.

Rev James McDonald has 10 children, aged between four and 26 - an extraordinary fertility motivated by obedience to the Bible.

"We believe that they are blessings… to be raised up in the worship of the Lord and they will be used by him in whatever way God will call them, to fulfil the Great Commission which we find in Matthew Chapter 28," he said.

The "Great Commission" - the duty to spread the Christian message throughout the world - is among a number of challenges Mr McDonald sees facing his family.

Among others, he cites divorce, adultery, abortion and internet pornography.

"The societal ills that we have, the challenges we have... we have rampant disease and bankrupt health systems because we don't know the truth of the Bible. But as these truths are lived out in the lives of God's people, society changes," he said.

The McDonalds are being joined in the battle by a growing number of very large traditionalist Christian families equally committed to promoting Biblical values.

When the Sanfords came to lunch, it was to celebrate the departure overseas of Garrison, one of their 13 offspring, to serve with the US marines.

They say his Christian example has already led his comrades to behave better.

When Garrison and the rest of his family drew up in a 15-seat minibus to be greeted by the McDonalds, a crowd was instantly created on the gravel outside the McDonalds' house.

The Sanfords - who have no television at home, and who all join in the household chores - give an impression of moderation and discipline.

The siblings address their father as "sir", and their esprit de corps is enhanced by wearing similar clothes.

Quiverfull families tend to believe in male headship - the principle, also derived from the Bible, that men should lead households.

Feminists are perhaps the fiercest critics of the budding Quiverfull movement.
They accuse it of trying to undo the equality and freedom won for women over decades of struggle, and claim that the idea of automatic male leadership is anachronistic.

But Robert Sanford sees his approach to family life both as authentically Christian, and as the best training for children to take on what he sees as the moral decay afflicting American society.

"I think we should as Christians lead in that way, and we can teach that character and teach those morals," he said.
"To me the Bible is the best way of doing it. In my estimation, the Bible is the only way of doing it."

At Providence Church in Morton, Illinois, the Sanfords occupy two full pews, uniformly dressed in black shirts and beige trousers or skirts.

There are several very large families here, their 15-seat mini-vans scattered across the car park.

James McDonald, the pastor here, uses the service to baptise a boy, immersing him bodily in a bath-type pool set up on the raised floor at the front of the church.
The boy's parents watch and wrap a towel around him as he emerges.

Pastor McDonald looks out on a sea of children, mostly conservatively dressed, many of the girls with their hair covered.
But, given what he sees in other churches, he is not complacent about their numbers.

"In denomination after denomination their children are leaving in mass exodus, and this is a major major problem especially when most families only have two or three children," he said.
"Who's going to fill those pews in the next generation?"

There is a wider concern too that going beyond the United States to traditionally Christian regions such as Europe, Christianity seems to be dying out.

Simply filling the world with white Christians is not what motivated either the Sanfords or the McDonalds - for them having large families was a matter of faith.

The Sanfords have adopted children from around the world.
But many of the traditionalist Christians who make up the Quiverfull movement are perplexed by the low birth rate of their co-religionists.

There is no overt talk about the need to boost white populations but, according to authors who have studied the movement, there is an underlying worry about "race suicide".

Allan Carlson favours larger families of any background, even though he says he is, as he puts it, a "radical secularist".

Dr Carlson heads the Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society in Rockford, Illinois, a research group arguing that a shortage of children threatens the world economy.

He says many Quiverfull families want to undermine what they regard as a "contraceptive mentality" in the West.
"The historic Christian view, Protestant and Catholic, prior to 1930, was that both contraception and abortion were incompatible with Christian faith," he said.
"We're starting to see some sense among conservative Protestants in America that that was the correct view, and I think that plays into the movement for larger families."

Many of those families are linked into the wider population of traditionalist Christians by the home-schooling movement, by which it is estimated that more than two million American children are taught at home.

They share concerns particularly about "life" issues - such as abortion and stem-cell research, but about promoting other traditionalist Christian values too, in areas such as marriage.

Mr Carlson - who advocates a reversal of the industrial revolution and a return to home-based businesses centred on the family - says there is a strategic motivation behind the Quiverfull movement.

"There is a sense in which these intentionally created large families are seeing themselves as the… foundation of a counter-culture, which could grow, and should grow," he said.

This counter-culture is still small, in the thousands or tens of thousands perhaps, but it does seem to be emerging as a determined force.

Quiverfull families insist that the government cannot fix America's problems, but that their children could.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8287740.stm
 
rynner2 said:
"There is a sense in which these intentionally created large families are seeing themselves as the… foundation of a counter-culture, which could grow, and should grow," he said.

This counter-culture is still small, in the thousands or tens of thousands perhaps, but it does seem to be emerging as a determined force.

Quiverfull families insist that the government cannot fix America's problems, but that their children could.

Until the children turn into teenagers. No, really. How many of them are going to stick to the movement? Few, I'll wager.
 
But many are well past teenage already:
Rev James McDonald has 10 children, aged between four and 26 - an extraordinary fertility motivated by obedience to the Bible.
 
People like this give Christianity a bad name :cry:
 
amester said:
People like this give Christianity a bad name :cry:

"Amen" to that, sister! ;)

Seriously, even tho I'm American, I've never heard of this "quiverfull" nonsense. I am aware tho that more and more very conservative Protestants are not only violently anti-abortion but increasingly anti-contraception.

And I'd been wondering about the proliferation of these weird people who seem so obsessed with having as many children as possible. Children may indeed be a blessing, but having a dozen kids is just plain irresponsible.

They may dress it up in "religious" language, but frankly I think a lot of these he-men are so taken with their own importance, they want future generations to be dominated by their own "superior" genes.

I find the whole thing profoundly distasteful, stupid, and a complete mockery of Christianity. :evil:
 
synchronicity said:
And I'd been wondering about the proliferation of these weird people who seem so obsessed with having as many children as possible. Children may indeed be a blessing, but having a dozen kids is just plain irresponsible.

Indeed. Religion is, by and large, not very 'green' - placing the size of a religion's membership above the survival and well-being of the planet as a whole.
 
They bear so many children so that they can brainwash them on their own turf, and spawn them across the country to assemble yet more loonies upon the Earth. Also, the reason the "written texts" are more authority than oral, is because the learned few had more power over the ignorant. As simple as that. When the bible was to be translated into English, there was uproar from the religious leaders. "Oh no! We don't want the common man to be able to read this shit, they might sus us out, then where would we be without all their valuables which we take from them?" Believe what you want, but please stop enforcing it nationally and internationally, that's a form of fascism. I don't care whether one believes the bible to be wholly or partially true, it makes no difference if they aren't pushing it onto others. That's what democracy and freedom is about. It's when they base laws upon this that it becomes ridiculous.
 
Yeah, but The Bible is more than a book packed with made up God fantasies, it's also a guidebook about how to live your life, not just worshipping the deity but being nice to people, tolerance, helping the less fortunate, looking after your world, all stuff that even atheists would agree our modern laws were based upon. It's not page after page of smiting the unbeliever and so on. Athiests and fundamentalists alike would do well to remember that.
 
If some people need a God and religion to be civil, then it is a sad world we live in indeed. I think the debate about being an absolutist or not, is a bit similar to whether you are a vegetarian for ethical or health reasons. Some vegetarians eat fish and foul, wear leather and wool etc, some do not. So, all this "demi-vegetarian" and "Vegan" labelling is misleading. You are either a vegetarian, or you are not. It's a hole, and there's no such thing as half a hole. So I expect the people with religious convictions are the "veggies" and the fundementalists are the "vegans" (Not that I'm saying that vegans are extremist nutters, because, in this case, they're probably the more ethical of the two, rather than the reverse, in the case of religion!)
As I wrote previously, it matters not, and people do not have to justify their beliefs, as long as their beliefs are not enforced upon others, especially children and the vulnerable. People should be left to make their own choices in life, choices which DO NOT intrude upon others and cause moral compromise. It's similar to asking if a patriotic person is a racist, or is a racist patriotic? One doesn't necesarrily come with the other. The same with religion. The absolutists in this case are the nutters, and, I suppose the selectively religious are hypocritical in that they follow a religion, rather than their hearts. But I expect the genuine religious people are less hypocritical, and more rational. 8)
 
gncxx said:
Yeah, but The Bible is more than a book packed with made up God fantasies, it's also a guidebook about how to live your life, not just worshipping the deity but being nice to people, tolerance, helping the less fortunate, looking after your world, all stuff that even atheists would agree our modern laws were based upon. It's not page after page of smiting the unbeliever and so on. Athiests and fundamentalists alike would do well to remember that.

The New Testament maybe, when Jesus comes along, but not the Old. ;)
 
escargot1 said:
The New Testament maybe, when Jesus comes along, but not the Old. ;)

Oh, I don't know, you have The Ten Commandments, The Book of Proverbs and the loved up Song of Snogs - erm, Songs in the Old Testament for a start.
 
Back
Top