WinePusher wrote:Slopeshoulder wrote:Can you point to an example where a liberal denied the label Christian to any fundamentalist who claimed it for themselves?
No, but consider what you're asking. I'll be going off of subjective definitions:
Indeed.
Fundamentalists are those who believe most if not the entirety of Christianity,
Balderdash. They are people who believe the entirely of Christianity in a certain way: literally. traditionally, conservatively.
Liberals are those who believe a moderate amount of Christian tenants and tend to challenge some christian doctrinal beliefs.
Balderdash. They are people who believe the entirely of Christianity in a certain way: symbolically, poetically, liberally. I for one never challenge doctrines, only interpretations and paradigms.
So the question refutes itself.
It sure does. Your subjective definition is a characature and a self-validating circularity. Cute but no cigar. (Don't take on Slopeshoulder, punk
)
Anyways, I've already said that I don't support Christians judging other Christians as non-Christians.
Fair enough and accepted. I acknowledge that (although Darias might have a point...?)
But what I have seen are liberals who deny the label of rationality and critical thinking to fundamentalists.
Partially true. But that is
not the same as saying they are not Christian.
Technically to be human is to be rational and think critically, but fundamentalists are notorius for doing so in a lazy and unimpressive fashion that fails to connect with those outside their orbit, usually manifesting a kind of leveling or know-nothingism behind a gloss of reason. (Of course, this is
not to say that religionists need to buy into a reductionistic rationalist definition of reason. There's a middle ground.) But they
are Christians! They affirm doctrine, live into faith and from faith, mostly nice folks, praying to the same God. Wrong in many ways IMO, but Christians for sure. They may not be correct IMO, but they are true.
Slopeshoulder wrote:Yes, fundies and libs disagree with, disparage and even disrespect each other's verisons of Christianity, but it seems to me pretty darn straightforward that it it NOT OK to cross a line into saying someone isn't a christian, a legitimate christian, or a true Christian.
What if someone claimed they were a Christian and yet did not believe Jesus Christ was our Lord and Savior who rose from the dead, the prequisite belief for any Christians (IMO) I think it's fair game to call out that person.
You might be surprised. For example, I personally affirm the doctrine of the resurrection enthusiastically. I affirm that without the ressurection our faith is dead, that this is the crux and absolute core of the Christian religion: the defeat of death through self-sacrifical love, courage, authenticity and only-god-could-do-it action. But I just don't think it happened literally and with historicity, but rather symbolically or mystically. So I
am orthodox, just not literalist. And these are NOT the same. Literalism is not a requirement for orthodoxy. This mistake is often made by fundamentalists. So in a surprise move, I actually affirm 99% of orthodoxy, and would be recognized for this by the Pope himself, I and many like me are (including many clergy). We do tend to keep our yaps shut and only talk to each other and the initiated on these topics so as not to shake up the faithful, but I figure at DC&R is fair game (heat and kitchens etc); sorry is that has shaken up some of the faithful. Actually, there's just one or two areas where the Pope and I could have a good chin wag and he might give me a smack down, having to do with Christology. But I am struggling mightly to understand Raimon Pannikar's
Christophany in a bid to remain orthodox on those points as well.
EDIT: Doctrines are part of the deposit of faith, and faith is what we abide in and invest with our trust. It doesn't mean we take them literally and historicallly if we don't want to. They are simply what we live in, what defines us, what shapes us, what we affirm and align with and invest with ultimate trust. And I do. See? Orthodox.
So again, you assume a fundamentalist set of criteria and apply it broadly, missing crucial distinctions and possibilities, and mistaking it for the entirely of christianity itself. It's not that simple. Or that circular.
Slopeshoulder wrote:THAT is the civility line right there. I think that is the issue and the crux of Otseng's intervention. Moreover, failure to see that after umpteen explanations seems to me either proving his point about poor debate, intelligence, belligerence or whatever, or stirring the pot for no apparent contructive reason (ahem, Goose, sorry thaz how i seez it
).
I don't believe you're a Christian (even though you claim to be one) because of reasons X, Y and Z. That was the crux of AmazingJesus' post.
I believe Fundamentalist Christians are wrong and misrepresent Christianity (even though they claim to be "true" Christians) for reasons X, Y and Z. That's the crux of liberal Christianity. Why is the former prohibited but the latter permissable?
Because, as Otseng, our wise leader and my favorite fundamentalist, has pointed out, the former is a judgment regarding one's
status as a Christian and the latter is an opinion as to one's
position as a Christian.
See how distinctions made make all the difference?
[/center]
