The impact of fundamentalism

[Cootie Brown]

It takes an imaginative mind to be Christian, at least from my perspective. If a person believes the Bible truly is the inspired words of God, then I think the Church of Christ has taken the only logical approach. If the Bible is true then it is reasonable to believe God expects His words to be followed exactly as written. Many believe that approach to scripture and God is the only correct way to be a Christian. That group of believers is commonly identified as fundamentalists. But that approach to scripture if often highly criticized by "mainstream" believers as being unrealistic and too dogmatic.

From a practical standpoint a literal adherence to the Bible has proven to be impossible for a number of reasons. Bible passages are often contradictive, inconsistence, and in some cases, based on current secular law, illegal. We can’t stone women for committing adultery, but the Bible says that is God’s will as written in His commandments.

Another potential problem, from my perspective, with interpreting the Bible literally is the very real possibility the Bible essentially becomes God and people begin to worship it. That is called Bibliolatry and I believe the Church of Christ is guilty of that sin, and so are some other fundamentalists groups. Real life problems are made worse when the Bible is interpreted literally. ENA brought up the issue of divorce. The Bible is crystal clear on that issue. The one and only reason God allows divorce is for adultery. If the wife is the guilty offender, then the Bible commands that she be stoned to death for her sin too. That might be okay in a Muslim country, but that will put you in prison for the rest of your life if you try that here in this country. So, you will have to sin in order to stay out of jail.

If you are a Christian you will struggle with cognitive dissonance for your entire life. About the only option you have is to cherry pick scripture, ENA does than in her divorce example, or reject a literal interpretation of scripture and remove your dissonance by proclaiming scripture is actually written allegorically, and was never intended to be understood or interpreted literally. That is a popular alternative among "mainstream" Christians.

Agricola refers to these stories as Theological myths and I agree with her. I think that is exactly what they are. The problem with categorizing the Bible as a collection of myths is the obvious implication they aren’t really true stories and the characters in them were not real people. That opens a gigantic can of worms. The retort from Christians, who take that position, is that they are Theological Myths, but that doesn’t mean they are fables. They are more like parables. While they may not be literally true or historically accurate they convey deep spiritual truths told in a narrative format. That is just the way God decided to convey His will and instructions to mankind. In some ways, or so the argument goes, that is actually more effective and easier to understand than a literal interpretation.

The human mind is an amazing organ. The lengths we humans will go to and the hoops we are willing to jump through in order to justified something we desperately want to believe is true is often truly amazing and quite ingenious. If you’re a believer you have simply got to find a way to make the Bible true and relevant, at least in your own mind, or your faith will simply shrivel up and die. I speak from personal experience on that point.

[Cootie Brown]

It seems to me that a key ingredient in all religions is the supernatural element. We humans seemed wired to believe there is more to existence than what our senses can detect. That makes us vulnerable to believing there is such a thing as a supernatural realm where our laws of science, physics, and math simply do not apply. This supposed supernatural realms operates under differ rules that are unknown to us, and that makes the impossible for us possible in that realm.

A former friend from the Church of Christ asked me why I left the "The Church"? I gave him a short summary of my reasons. He agreed that many of the beliefs and traditions in the Church of Christ were hard to believe, but then added, "I just can't take the chance that they're wrong." I believe most Christians are Christians for exactly that same reason. They fear they can't take the chance that God really does exist and Hell is a real place. I think my friend summed up why most people are Christians. Their motivation is fear. I think Pascal’s Wager clearly states the motivation for many people to become Christians.

Pascal's Wager is named after 17th-century French philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal.

The gist of the Wager is that, according to Pascal, one cannot come to the knowledge of God’s existence through reason alone, so the wise thing to do is to live your life as if God does exist because such a life has everything to gain and nothing to lose. If we live as though God exists, and He does indeed exist, we have gained heaven. If He doesn’t exist, we have lost nothing. If, on the other hand, we live as though God does not exist and He really does exist, we have gained hell and punishment and have lost heaven and bliss. If one weighs the options, clearly the rational choice to live as if God exists is the better of the possible choices. Pascal even suggested that some may not, at the time, have the ability to believe in God. In such a case, one should live as if he had faith anyway. Perhaps living as if one had faith may lead one to actually come to faith. Is Pascal saying it's possible to trick God?

While the bible has a lot to say about God’s love for humanity I think it’s the fear of hell that motives most people to become Christians. In spite of what they say, I think most Christians fear death because they are uncertain of their eternal destination. One can never be sure that they’ve done enough. And the punishment for failing to make the cut is to be burned alive forever.

So, will embracing a mainstream or liberal interpretation of scripture alleviate the fear of hell?

[FinallyFree]

Cootie, for me, I can honestly say I no longer fear hell. I have faith, live right and want to do good; but not out of a fear of punishment.

[Cootie Brown]

Cootie, for me, I can honestly say I no longer fear hell. I have faith, live right and want to do good; but not out of a fear of punishment.

Good for you. Then you have found a religion that works for you. Congratulations.

[FinallyFree]

Yes, Cootie, I LOVE my church and am very happy. It is a shining light in my life.

[Cootie Brown]

Yes, Cootie, I LOVE my church and am very happy. It is a shining light in my life.

I'm thinking, while I'm reading your posts, I don't recall anyone saying anything like that about the Church of Christ. I mostly remember some people being very proud that they were members of the Lord's Church and therefore they believed they were on solid ground scripturally. So if St. Peter was going to give an entrance exam at the Pearly Gates, they felt confident they had all the right answers and they were a shoo in to get a set of keys to their mansion.

[FinallyFree]

Years ago, before I started questioning, I think I felt pride that the CofC got "everything right", but I never really got anything out of the services or found any joy in being there. Well, there was a brief exception when I lived in Tyler, TX for a year and we attended a very progressive CofC that did upbeat songs and allowed clapping, I remember looking at the words to "Great is Thy Faithfulness" on the screen one Sunday and when I read the part about 'all that I needed thy hand hath provided', that just spoke to me and it meant a lot to me. Anyway, after that we moved, and back to mostly boring churches, with maybe one exception that had occasionly meaningful services.
But now, I attend the contemporary service at my church and really am moved by the songs and the message and the communion at the end, which is done by intinction. I love that we say the Lord's Prayer together every Sunday. I remember when I was growing up, my mother told me we were not supposed to say the Lord's Prayer because the kingdom had already come.

[agricola]

FinallyFree - forgive me for not looking it up - but have you shared your 'new path' in New Paths?

[FinallyFree]

FinallyFree - forgive me for not looking it up - but have you shared your 'new path' in New Paths?

Yes, there is a thread on Disciples of Christ and I discussed my experience.

[ena]

It takes an imaginative mind to be Christian, at least from my perspective. If a person believes the Bible truly is the inspired words of God, then I think the Church of Christ has taken the only logical approach. If the Bible is true then it is reasonable to believe God expects His words to be followed exactly as written.

You take a very narrow view. The Bible is not inerrant! For this reason it is not a rule book, but a general guide line. As a rule book it fails to be complete in the sense of a rule book. The Church of Christ thinks it has logic when it does not. Only men carry the ability to create male. Virgin births are known in biological world. As far as I know the children are female. The word is parthenogenesis. You can look it up. It comes from the Greek word parthenous. Which is translated virgin in Matthew 1:23. It quotes Isaiah 7:14 where virgin is the Hebrew almah. Best translated as young woman. The woman can newly married or pregnant. The translation is bogus and in most Protestant Bibles, Here is the Strong's link. The wiki link considers the girl already pregnant. Isaiah was probably the father. The point is that you to be careful with English translations.

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5959.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almah