Religion A question to the Protestant Christians

[strongvoicesforward]

Hmmm-... His word is the Bible and that it is God insprired and inerrant...

A bat is not a bird. A rabbit does not have a cud.

Hmmm, indeed!

 

[strongvoicesforward]

100% certainty? Don't have it, don't need it. I live with uncertainty moment by moment and the thrill of the risks- like drinking tap water! Oh what a rush.

You are being deceptive or refusing to squash ignorance.

You do not live in an uncertain world moment by moment. You live in a world of what is "most probable" and that is what and how you conduct your life by.

You drive to work believing in the probability that you having a major accident will not occur anytime at any particular moment. When you are waiting for your wife to arrive home, you do so believing in the probability that she will not meet a more handsome and charming man than you and begin an affair and eventually leave you. Yes, all that is possible, but you do not live your life on the low odds of that happening. You live with the odds -- unless you are a neurotic.

If your city government was airing news every other hour stating one hour the water was drinkable and then the next was poisonous but you didn`t bother with the warnings and still drank it -- then yes, there would be your uncertainty and your "thrill of the moment." Anything less than that is your imagination, hyping up your sense of the low odds which you do not live by. You are deceiving yourself and causing yourself to be dilusional as to the reality of the real world in which you live.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

IMO, faith is a worthless concept used by lazy, scared people who are too weak to ever consider challenging their beliefs. If I was God I would be completely disappointed with anyone who put their full faith in me. The code of the real "truth seeker" should be that they are willing to drop anything they currently believe in so further seek the truth, thus not ever having complete "faith".

Well said, Bucko. However, to drop faith for BWOGers would mean to open their reason and abandon rationalizations as a tool to explain that which is not explainable. Self indoctrination is their mode of operati and when they feel they have sufficiently been indoctrinated, they turn their mantras upon their children, making sure they get them at the youngest age possible so that it all sticks. Xtian parents would be appalled to even consider letting their children go to the age where a considerable high degree of formal reasoning could be employed by their children before they started indoctrination.

I think children can really start some higher forms of logic and reasoning by about age 12 or definitely by age 14. If you went to most kids at 14 who have never had any RESUP (Religious/Superstition) indoctrination and then suddenly sprang the adventures of the Fairy God King stories on them, they would remember their let down when they found out Santa Clause wasn`t real and just say, "Yeah, right?" with a credulous sneer.

For Xtians, it is imperative that they "get 'em" while they are young, lest they miss the window of opportunity to subvert reason.

 

[No-name]

SFV- Again, you are begining to be offensive and cross the line of religious intolerance. We heard your intolerant bigotry (what you call witticisms) several times before, they were neither funny nor insightful the first time and repeating them over and over makes you appear unimaginative and ignorant. I would say your use of invented acronyms makes reading your posts quite clunky.

Your thoughts about when most people convert to Christianity is partly correct although the reasoning is not supported by data- most Christians will mark the age of 13 as an important point in the development of their faith. A significant percentage however are like CS Lewis and come to know and understand faith significantly later.

 

[Maciamo]

SFV- Again, you are begining to be offensive and cross the line of religious intolerance. We heard your intolerant bigotry (what you call witticisms) several times before, they were neither funny nor insightful the first time and repeating them over and over makes you appear unimaginative and ignorant. I would say your use of invented acronyms makes reading your posts quite clunky.

For my part, I do find them quite funny and certainly true, and I don't see how this could be called "intolerance" except if your mind is completely closed to criticism and rationalisation. What precise point(s) in what he said did you find to be untrue ?

 

[Bucko]

SFV- Again, you are begining to be offensive and cross the line of religious intolerance.

Sorry, what did he say in that lost post that was intolerant?

 

[No-name]

What do I find intolerant: Again, I find the use of Xtians, BWOGers and the like a bit offensive... Now he has added RESUP. The religion = superstition. The use of "fairy God King and the comparison with Santa Clause- is simply mockery and bigotry. The idea that religion is some kind of lack of intelligence or critical thinking- that we have been indoctrinated by some mantra...that he knows our "modus operandi." It is a flat out indication of prejudice and stereotyping. I don't know how you guys find this either funny or acceptable.

And- you do live in a world of uncertainty- as indicated by post #42 paragraph 3...how you mitigate it and how much you tolerate it is a function of your belief system.

 

[Maciamo]

What do I find intolerant: Again, I find the use of Xtians, BWOGers and the like a bit offensive... Now he has added RESUP. The religion = superstition. The use of "fairy God King and the comparison with Santa Clause- is simply mockery and bigotry.

Mockery is not the same as bigotry. And mockery of ideas (not people) is fun and perfectly alright. Socrates did practice "proof by the absurd", which we are also using here. Why should one believe in something that is absurd even for them ?

 

[Tsuyoiko]

So, do you consider the Mormons, Jeovah's Witnesses, Scientologists, etc. as Protestants too ?

Sorry Maciamo, when I said 'protestant' in that post I should have said 'non-Catholic'. My mistake. :gomen:

 

[Tsuyoiko]

others yet who are truly convinced that the Bible is innerant (i.e. absolutely true in every respect) and that their faith is the only faith valid (Born-again Christians).

I don't think all 'born-again' Christians believe the Bible is inerrant - that's Fundamentalists isn't it? Not all born-again Christians are Fundamentalists, AFAIK.

I can understand the two first, but not those convinced that they hold the one and only truth.

I agree with you on that. Fundamentalists are wrong. There are errors in the Bible and if you don't see them you are kidding yourself. They might as well believe that the Sun orbits the Earth or that the Earth is flat, to quote a couple of cliches. And I'm not even going to say 'IMO'. But if someone recognises the errors and still wants to believe in it, I think that's their choice - as long as they respect my right to not believe in it, don't try to convert me, and don't pray for me.
If anyone wants to know more about Catholicism, I have found New Advent to be a good site. It is informative, without seeming at all partisan.

 

[Maciamo]

Sorry Maciamo, when I said 'protestant' in that post I should have said 'non-Catholic'. My mistake. :gomen:

But still, there are Catholics who do not recognise the Pope in Rome.

Among those who regard themselves as Catholic but not Roman Catholic are members of the various Eastern Orthodox Churches (such as the Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox), the Oriental Orthodox, Anglo-Catholics (also known as High Anglicans), the Old, the Independent Catholic, Ancient and Liberal Catholic Churches, and the Lutherans (though the latter prefer the lower-case "c").

Check the sources for further links.

Have you heard of the Anglo-Catholics (aka High Anglicans) ? (I've just discovered that !)

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I don't think all 'born-again' Christians believe the Bible is inerrant - that's Fundamentalists isn't it? Not all born-again Christians are Fundamentalists, AFAIK.I agree with you on that. Fundamentalists are wrong. There are errors in the Bible and if you don't see them you are kidding yourself. They might as well believe that the Sun orbits the Earth or that the Earth is flat, to quote a couple of cliches. And I'm not even going to say 'IMO'.

Well, Sabro seems to think the BWOG is innerrant. Look:

Sabro: Originally Posted by sabro
Hmmm- I believe in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, that he is the only way, that His word is the Bible and that it is God insprired and inerrant.

Tsuyoiko: But if someone recognises the errors and still wants to believe in it, I think that's their choice - as long as they respect my right to not believe in it, don't try to convert me, and don't pray for me.

I doubt many Xtians would respect your request to not pray for you. Would you, Sabro?

 

[Maciamo]

I don't think all 'born-again' Christians believe the Bible is inerrant - that's Fundamentalists isn't it? Not all born-again Christians are Fundamentalists, AFAIK.
...
Fundamentalists are wrong. There are errors in the Bible and if you don't see them you are kidding yourself.

Fundementalism can described any Christian from any denomination that believes in the innerancy of the Bible. religioustolerance.org has statistics about the approximate percentages of each of the main Christian denominations in the USA who believe that the bible is flawless.

Denominations for which over half of the members believe in that the Bible is innerant include : Pentecostals (81%), Assembly of God (77%), non-denominational Christians (70%), Baptists (66%), Seventh-day Adventists (64%), and the Church of Christ (57%).

All of them are considered conservative Protestants, and most are also Born-again, Evengelical and Fundamentalist. But it is true that not all Born-again Christians necessarily believe in the innerancy of the Bible, just the majority.

Overall, here are what American Christians believe :

The Barna Research Group reported in 1996 that among American adults generally:
- 58% believe that the Bible is "totally accurate in all its teachings"
- 45% believe that the Bible is "absolutely accurate and everything in it can be taken literally."

 

[No-name]

I believe the Bible is the word of God and is "inerrant." It is exactly the book God intended- warts and all. It is inerrant in the fact that God did not make a mistake-- What ever is there is there intentionally- inspired by God through the hands and language of men (and a couple of women.) They used the language, customs, and idiomatic expression of their day. Just because I can't explain a verse or it is not translated exactly does not make it an error. I believe most of the apparent errors derive from ripping the verses out of their cultural context, misapplication, or overgeneralization... or my favorite- literalization- reading passages literally that should be taken figuratively. the purpose and the intent of the author should always be taken into account.

I am not a fundamentalist. I don't read every verse literally, nor do I believe that the Bible should be read like a text book- a history book, an anthropology text, a tome on science. I am not in the strictest sense a creationists. Although I do not object to them- I do not believe all the stories in the bible are literal historical accounts (except where it is indicated that they are- the Gospels, Acts, and the "Historical" sections of the Old Testament.") What God told to Moses on the mountain and what eventually got written down in the Pentatuch is exactly what he wanted them to know. It may not have been absolutely literal.

There are plenty of places that I couldn't possibly give an explanation for- such as the slavery thread- or the rabbits and the cud thing.

 

[Maciamo]

I am not a fundamentalist. I don't read every verse literally, nor do I believe that the Bible should be read like a text book- a history book, an anthropology text, a tome on science.

Many fundamentalist don't like to admit that they are. But when I compare you to other Christians, like most Catholics in Europe, who do not think the Bible is inerrant, who rarely believe in a personal god, who rarely believe in creationsim at all, who don't read the Bible and almost never go to church, the difference between you and the most fundamentalistic Christians is minor. And yet, I already find those Catholics too conservative and irrational, because some may believe in miracles, in heaven or that god judges their life.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

But still, there are Catholics who do not recognise the Pope in Rome.

Good point.

Have you heard of the Anglo-Catholics (aka High Anglicans) ? (I've just discovered that !)

There is a High Church at the end of my street. Simon's cousin got married there. That was a scary event for me. There is a huge, gory crucifix above the altar. Where else would such a violent image be allowed in public? A woman in front of me was scolding her child that he should behave or Jesus would come after him. Jesus as bogeyman? They swung the censer around so much I thought my head would get lopped off. Then it was time for communion, and the verger started the hard sell. It was like a scene from Father Ted: "Would you like a blessing," "No thank you," "Ah, you will," "No thank you," "Go on, go on, go on, go on, GO ON!"

 

[Maciamo]

I believe: I am not a baptist. (I don't know how many times I have to say this.)

You seem indeed to change opinion on this quite frequently. I asked you a few days ago what Christian denomination you followed, and you told me that you are a Baptist. Then 2 days ago you said : "I count myself as one of the Born Again Evangelical crowd".

Anyway, Baptists are all "born-again Christians", and many of them are also Evangelical. Evengelicals is the more fundamentalist version of Baptist Christianity, according to Wikipedia and Religioustolerance.org. So it doesn't change much to what I wanted to say.

 

[No-name]

You seem indeed to change opinion on this quite frequently. I asked you a few days ago what Christian denomination you followed, and you told me that you are a Baptist. Then 2 days ago you said : "I count myself as one of the Born Again Evangelical crowd".
Anyway, Baptists are all "born-again Christians", and many of them are also Evangelical. Evengelicals is the more fundamentalist version of Baptist Christianity, according to Wikipedia and Religioustolerance.org. So it doesn't change much to what I wanted to say.

I never, ever, said I was a Baptist. (I don't know how I would even make a typo like that.) Baptists are a (actually there are two main groups and several smaller groups) specific denomination with a specific set of beliefs and practices that I am not a member of and I don't follow. Evangelicals are not a more fundamentalist version of Baptist- regardless of what you have read- Baptists are one type of evangelical. Evangelical is a general category, Baptists a specific denomination. Don't assume you know what I believe or how I think unless you ask me and I tell you. The non denominational church I attend is neither fundamentalist, nor pentacostal, nor is a Calvary Chapel or Vinyard. We are loosely tied to Willow Creek.
Also I have answered several questions where I felt the intent was to neither incite nor ridicule. If you choose to continue to ignore my responses that is also fine, but please don't turn around and say I didn't give an answer. Gentlemen, I don't look down upon you or anyone- nor do I want you or anyone to go to the hell that you don't believe exists anyway. The acronyms he is using are an attempt to ridicule and demean- and if you chose not to see that, I can't help you with it. The transposition of the letters was an error on my part I wasn't even aware I was doing. For this I appologize. SVF has been behaving himself as of late- so lets get back to topic.

 

[Maciamo]

I never, ever, said I was a Baptist. (I don't know how I would even make a typo like that.) Baptists are a (actually there are two main groups and several smaller groups) specific denomination with a specific set of beliefs and practices that I am not a member of and I don't follow. Evangelicals are not a more fundamentalist version of Baptist- regardless of what you have read- Baptists are one type of evangelical. Evangelical is a general category, Baptists a specific denomination. Don't assume you know what I believe or how I think unless you ask me and I tell you. The non denominational church I attend is neither fundamentalist, nor pentacostal, nor is a Calvary Chapel or Vinyard. We are loosely tied to Willow Creek.

You said you considered yourself as a Born-again and Evangelical. So, I checked expressedly the definitions.

Wikipedia on Born-again :

Born again is a term used primarily in the Fundamentalist and Evangelical branches of Protestant Christianity, where it is associated with salvation, conversion and spiritual rebirth.

Wikipedia on Evangelicalism :

Emphasis on the conversion experience, also called being saved, or new birth or born again after John 3:3. Thus evangelicals often refer to themselves as born-again Christians. This experience is said to received by "faith alone" and to be given by God as the result of "grace alone."

So far, it is coherent with what you said.

Wikipedia on Christian Fundamentalism :

Fundamentalist Christianity, or Christian fundamentalism is a movement which arose mainly within American Protestantism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by conservative evangelical Christians, who, in a reaction to modernism, actively affirmed a "fundamental" set of Christian beliefs: the inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the authenticity of his miracles.

There is clearly a strong link between fundamentalism, evangelicalism and born-again, as each definition sends back to the other.

To determine whether you are a fundamentalist yourself, is there anything among these five fundamentals that you do not agree with ?

• Inerrancy of the Scriptures
• The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
• The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and human faith
• The bodily resurrection of Jesus
• The authenticity of Christ's miracles (or, alternatively, his premillenial second coming)

 

[No-name]

Tsuyoiko- that makes the muscles on the back of my neck tighten.

Maciamo-

On the other thread you posted a couple of Wikipedia definitions. I believe it is more appropriate to respond here. Realize in the Born-Again definition the word "primarily" means that many other Christians use the term than Just fundamentalists and evangelicals. I know many Charismatic Catholics who would gladly accept the labels evangelical, Born Again and pentacostal.
I agree with all five fundamental that you posted. In that way, I must concede I am a fundamentalist. But the connotation among evangelicals is that the fundamentalists are unusally literal in their biblical reading and what we call legalistic in application. I don't find either attractive or descriptive of myself.