This was a thought-provoking post by a Catholic blogger:
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com … ology.html
I'm not Catholic or Christian, myself, but I agree with him on many points.
I'm interested in what others might think. Thoughtful commentary (whether it's in agreement or not), please.
If I understand correctly what part of the article is the blogger's words and what parts are not, then I agree with him on one thing----he is not a Christian. Which he seems quite audaciously proud of, to his own shame actually.
I'm not sure what his definition of "fundamentalist" is, but if it means taking the Bible at its word and believing the Biblical account of Jesus's life and death and resurrection (which he seems to dismiss as false), then I'm a fundamentalist (as is ANY Christian). And the blogger's article is simply an egotistical religious rant against Christianity with the critique of another anti-Mormonism writer thrown in (for what purpose, I dunno, except perhaps to try to fake people out about what side he's on...).
I'm appalled that he wants to dismiss the literal act of Jesus's walk here on earth by changing the Scripture in John from "the Word" to "reason", as though it didn't literally happen. The man is into mysticism or some such nonsense, and apparently cannot understand that the manifestation of the Christ was both literal and Spiritual. Jesus was the Word in the flesh, God in the flesh. I'd be disappointed if anyone takes that blogger's meanderings to heart.
Did you read the actual article? It seems like you're just reacting and passing judgment based on an incomplete reading of the article.
Then correct me by pointing out what I missed. Isn't that the blogger's view that he doesn't believe the Bible? That he thinks the accounts of Jesus's resurrection, in particular, aren't true? I did read the entire article. And that's what I got from it.
I'm not going to read it for you, but he doesn't believe everything is the literal truth, because it couldn't be the literal truth. He points out the conflicting accounts of Jesus's final words as just one instance of an irreconcilable inconsistency.
He is fairly clear about his belief in Jesus.
Okay, I got that. At least he claims to believe. But that in itself is inconsistent with his view of the Resurrection and his view that the Bible isn't correct. A Christian believes the Bible. So, he himself said he's not a Christian. Is he Catholic, as you referred to in the original post? Okay....so....he's inconsistent already since a Catholic should be a Christian too, and Catholics believe the Bible.
And no he isn't even fairly clear, from what I read, about his belief in Jesus; at least, not Jesus as the God and Savior that He is. Maybe he believes in Jesus as a historical fact? I dunno. But he is apparently very confused about even the basics of Christianity. That is my thoughtful commentary, based on the words of the blogger.
Who is christian, the blogger or Brenda ?
On balance, from the tone and content of both their comments it would have to be the blogger who is the 'more' christian, showing tolerance, thoughtfulness and also a reasoning ability.
That exact question has always been a head scratcher for me, when reading the posts of the Bible literalists on this forum.
Most of them are not Bible literalists in any consistent fashion. They are literal about the parts that don't apply to them, and very, very liberal about the parts that do. (They will go silent the second you call them on it)
For instance, some will insist Jesus spent a lot of time condemning homosexuals, while implying that he was fine with divorce. They usually don't rely on scripture to support heretical theses like these.
I'm not aware of any statement by Jesus on homosexuality, or divorce. I may be wrong about divorce, but definitely not homosexuality. Paul ran his mouth a lot, but he appeared to have issues that caused that.
That's right - Paul mentioned it, but Jesus never.
About divorce, Jesus condemned it at least four times:
If you're waiting for all those "devout" Christians who are dead-set against any gay equality to try to get divorce banned...don't hold your breath.
Well, don't be too hasty in your confidence. I grew up in a time when divorce really was considered to be close to an abomination. It used to be (maybe still is, I don't know) that Roman Catholics could be excommunicated because of divorce. And as recently as about 20 years ago, a young woman I knew was hesitant to seek a divorce from an abusive husband because she "didn't believe in" divorce. Attitudes among Christians concerning divorce have not always been the same as they are today - even in my own lifetime. A lot of change is not instantaneous.
Yes, well, to be clear, I am all for divorce. If you don't love someone, you shouldn't be married to them. All the more reason to get a divorce if you're with an abusive spouse.
But, you're right: self-identified "Christian fundamentalists" are increasingly willing to give themselves plenty of leeway on those prohibited behaviors, if it might apply to them, sometimes for very good reason. But they demand absolute adherence to those condemnations that don't interest them personally, no matter how cruel such condemnations are.
Well, although I think the whole thing is hypocritical I wouldn't advocate forcing them to consider divorce wrong. I think I probably saw those passages you referenced as showing how everything, according to law is sin; without taking the individual into account.
I know I stayed married because I was unwilling to deal with the stigma of being divorced. He died young, so I got my reprieve; but I wouldn't wish unhappiness on anyone. Everyone makes mistakes. Even the religious.
All religions accept the facts of science which just explores from nature that has been Created by the Creator-God.
I thought it was an excellent article. I loved the part (and have always agreed) where he said fundamentalism wasn't a true faith in God. I always tried to be supportive of them, always called them the weaker Christians; because of the insanity of believing in things that were proven wrong, time and again.
I'm afraid I don't think there are useful lies. When something is proven wrong you have to accept it and move on.
... and it's really nothing new. It's very easy for us Christians to forget that there have been disagreements from the beginning about which aspects of the faith were most important and which ones were less important; about what was essential to believe in order to be a Christian and what could be allowed to be a matter of personal belief. It's not even exclusive to Christianity.
What an interesting article. Conflicting stories in the Bible is an issue atheists like to discuss between ourselves, but I have never found a Christian who enjoys discussing them too until this article - and I think he addresses them very thoughtfully, accepting them without trying to explain them away but also reconciling them with his faith.
by Justin Earick 5 years ago
Sodom wasn't smited for homosexuality (false-idol worship, poor treatment of strangers and the poor, gang rape). Leviticus doesn't matter (old covenant, pork, lobster, tattoos, mixed fibers, period sex, swearing). Paul was talking about vastly different subjects (lust, guilt, boy...
by Tricia Mason 6 years ago
Hi I would like to know, please, if any Christian members of this community accept evolutionary theory as true; or if anyone knows any Christians, who believe that evolution is true?Thanks
by Paula 6 years ago
I see this posted a lot in threads, and wanted to explore the idea. It may be true, or not. For example, it has been said,"I have seen "Your religion (Christianity) causes so many wars." It is stated as a fact. I am wanting to gather some thoughts and information,...
by haj3396 8 years ago
The Catholic church admit that it brought about sunday worship not God, therefore you are worshipping this church when you worship on sunday, not God.Pope Gregory I "It has come to my ears that certain men of perverse spirit have sown among you some things that are wrong and opposed to the...
by Mikel G Roberts 23 months ago
How is it possible that Protestants think Catholics aren't Christians?The earliest Protestant church was the Lutheran Church, named after the Catholic monk Martin Luther. The man that broke away from the only christian church in existence, the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church was...
by Captain Redbeard 3 years ago
I just read a post from someone stating that Christianity is based on the Bible which stands to reason, "If Christianity is based off the bible then that means it would have never come to furition since the book would never have been written because no Christian would have existed before...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|