Are fundementalist "Christians" real Christians?

[Citizen James]

Yes, I recognize that fundamentalism is more of a meta than a specific movement.   Still, certain groups tend to break themselves down into fundamentalist or non-fundamentalist.

Still, given the Mormon thread, coupled with tendency for fundamentalists to be among the more hostile sects toward the LDS church, I figured it an apt question.  After all, "Christian" fundamentalism is a newer movement than Mormonism, and does have significant differences with mainline Christianity - most notably the belief in biblical inerrancy and literalism.

I don't consider the name to be the deciding factor, as there are plenty of misleading names out there (from the people's "republic" of China to "Jews" for Jesus.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No. They follow a false and evil abomination, just like Muslims, Mormons and Scientologists.

[dead0man]

Very few "Christians" are real Christians.  I've read the Bible and I don't understand how somebody could claim to follow Christ and drive a $50k car or live in a McMansion.  Do they not read or do they not understand?  I don't understand how a follower of Jesus could hate a gay person or a minority.  Do they not read or do they not understand?

[John Dibble]

Very few "Christians" are real Christians.  I've read the Bible and I don't understand how somebody could claim to follow Christ and drive a $50k car or live in a McMansion.  Do they not read or do they not understand?  I don't understand how a follower of Jesus could hate a gay person or a minority.  Do they not read or do they not understand?

There's also the type that go to strip clubs and have sex outside of marriage, like a certain self-proclaimed Christian who has posted in this thread already.

[Earth]

What's a real Christian?

[Torie]

What's a real Christian?

Asking that question un-masks that the question at hand has no clothes. There is no "there" there.

Anyway, I would focus more on behavior than what someone asserts they believe. I don't care if someone is mainline, or fundamentalist, or Catholic or Orthodox. If they live the golden rule, to me they are good Christians. If they do not, they are ersatz, and I don't care what the theological fine points are on the matter.

[anvi]

What's a real Christian?

Asking that question un-masks that the question at hand has no clothes. There is no "there" there.

Anyway, I would focus more on behavior than what someone asserts they believe. I don't care if someone is mainline, or fundamentalist, or Catholic or Orthodox. If they live the golden rule, to me they are good Christians. If they do not, they are ersatz, and I don't care what the theological fine points are on the matter.

Right on. 

[A18]

I've read the Bible and I don't understand how somebody could claim to follow Christ and drive a $50k car or live in a McMansion.

On what ground? That the accumulation of material wealth is inconsistent with Christianity? But then why didn't you include air conditioning, computers, shampoo, television sets, MP3 players, and vacuum cleaners?

Indeed, why didn't you include any car on the market today? Don't they all have "unnecessary" features? And what house size is too large? Is there a magic number buried somewhere in Scripture?

[Bono]

Yes, I recognize that fundamentalism is more of a meta than a specific movement.   Still, certain groups tend to break themselves down into fundamentalist or non-fundamentalist.

Still, given the Mormon thread, coupled with tendency for fundamentalists to be among the more hostile sects toward the LDS church, I figured it an apt question.  After all, "Christian" fundamentalism is a newer movement than Mormonism, and does have significant differences with mainline Christianity - most notably the belief in biblical inerrancy and literalism.

I don't consider the name to be the deciding factor, as there are plenty of misleading names out there (from the people's "republic" of China to "Jews" for Jesus.

The belief in Biblical innerancy has always been a feature of Christianity, until the advent of theological liberalism in the beginning of the 19th century. Nice try though. It'd work if Christians were the idiots you think they are.

[anvi]

True, a belief in Biblical inerrancy has been a long-standing feature of the Christian tradition, but there have also been debates about how best to interpret Scripture, from the debates among the patristics to the competing Alexandrian and Antiochene approaches and how these different approaches got translated into theological debates among different Christian denominations for centuries after that.  And, for at least the first three and a half centuries of the history of Christianity, and more, there was no one collection of books in the modern form of the New Testament that the entire Christian community believed in; different communities had different Gospels, letters and apocalyptic literature and so on.  It's pretty hard to write even Luther's "sola scriptura" not to mention twentieth century ideas of Biblical inerrancy, back into the earliest centureis of Christianity.

[Holmes]

There's also the type that go to strip clubs and have sex outside of marriage, like a certain self-proclaimed Christian who has posted in this thread already.

BRTD had sex outside of marriage? Scandalous.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

There's also the type that go to strip clubs and have sex outside of marriage, like a certain self-proclaimed Christian who has posted in this thread already.

BRTD had sex outside of marriage? Scandalous.

And once with a stripper. And another time with a girl who I had just met that day and didn't even know her last name at the time.

[tik 🪀✨]

There's also the type that go to strip clubs and have sex outside of marriage, like a certain self-proclaimed Christian who has posted in this thread already.

BRTD had sex outside of marriage? Scandalous.

And once with a stripper. And another time with a girl who I had just met that day and didn't even know her last name at the time.

have a happy herpes

[dead0man]

I've read the Bible and I don't understand how somebody could claim to follow Christ and drive a $50k car or live in a McMansion.

On what ground? That the accumulation of material wealth is inconsistent with Christianity? But then why didn't you include air conditioning, computers, shampoo, television sets, MP3 players, and vacuum cleaners?

Indeed, why didn't you include any car on the market today? Don't they all have "unnecessary" features? And what house size is too large? Is there a magic number buried somewhere in Scripture?

Luke 12:33. "Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys."

Luke 3:11. And [John the Baptist] would answer and say to them, "Let the man with two tunics share with him who has none, and let him who has food do likewise."

Mt. 5:42. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.

Luke 14:12-14. "When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return, and repayment come to you. But when you give a reception, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, since they do not have the means to repay you; for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

Luke 12:44. "Sell your possessions and give alms; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."

Mt. 19:20ff. The young man said to Him, "All these commands I have kept; what am I still lacking?" Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

Luke 6:33ff. "And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, in order to receive back the same."

Mt. 6:2-4. "When therefore you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will repay you."

Mt. 6:24. "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Money."

1 Tim. 6:10. For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith, and pierced themselves with many a pang.

Gal. 2:9ff. Recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John... gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we might go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. They only asked us to remember the poor-- the very thing I also was eager to do.

Prov. 19:17. He who is gracious to a poor man lends to the LORD, and He will repay him for his good deed.

Prov. 14:31. He who oppresses the poor reproaches his Maker, but he who is gracious to the needy honors Him.

[A18]

I take it that your answer to the second question is "yes"—though a number of your quotations do not even arguably support that position. Now answer the third question, as well as the subsequent inquiries.

[dead0man]

I've read the Bible and I don't understand how somebody could claim to follow Christ and drive a $50k car or live in a McMansion.

On what ground? That the accumulation of material wealth is inconsistent with Christianity?

By reading the teachings of Christ, yes it seems that it would be. At least with excessive wealth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because making a list like that would be exhaustive and stupid?  The two examples I gave seem to have been enough to get your goat, the extra would have been superfluous.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hey, if you can read the scriptures and come to the conclusion that God thinks it's ok if you just give the bare minimum (10% or whatever) that is between you and your god.  I read them differently, but maybe I've missed some parts.  Fight my ignorance?

[A18]

Specifically targeting a small subset of x, when all of x is problematic, is rather misleading. Why talk about $50,000 cars, when far cheaper cars are subject to precisely the same critique? Why talk about "McMansions" (whatever that means), when even a small house is—by the standards of Jesus's day—a luxury item?

If you're willing to condemn essentially every Christian living in Western society, then I agree that there is no contradiction in your position.

[dead0man]

If you're willing to condemn essentially every Christian living in Western society, then I agree that there is no contradiction in your position.

Yeah, pretty much.


edit-my first post in the thread did start out "Very few 'Christians' are real Christians."

[JSojourner]

Yes, I recognize that fundamentalism is more of a meta than a specific movement.   Still, certain groups tend to break themselves down into fundamentalist or non-fundamentalist.

Still, given the Mormon thread, coupled with tendency for fundamentalists to be among the more hostile sects toward the LDS church, I figured it an apt question.  After all, "Christian" fundamentalism is a newer movement than Mormonism, and does have significant differences with mainline Christianity - most notably the belief in biblical inerrancy and literalism.

I don't consider the name to be the deciding factor, as there are plenty of misleading names out there (from the people's "republic" of China to "Jews" for Jesus.

The belief in Biblical innerancy has always been a feature of Christianity, until the advent of theological liberalism in the beginning of the 19th century. Nice try though. It'd work if Christians were the idiots you think they are.

Well, redaction criticism and all the various theological stepchildren of Bultman and that crowd is relatively new.  (As is Darbyism and Dispensationalism, which you and I both find silly.)

But heresy has been around since the get-go.  Gnosticism, etc.  Nothing really new under the sun.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

can I get a listing of the fundamentalist positions that are considered heresy?

[JSojourner]

can I get a listing of the fundamentalist positions that are considered heresy?

It's really impossible to have that discussion with you because we define fundamentalism differently.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

can I get a listing of the fundamentalist positions that are considered heresy?

It's really impossible to have that discussion with you because we define fundamentalism differently.

then simply state your definition along with the heresies that you see

[Tetro Kornbluth]

“Christianity might be a good thing if anyone ever tried it” - George Bernard Shaw

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

“Christianity might be a good thing if anyone ever tried it” - George Bernard Shaw

dude, why do you make me google "George Bernard Shaw"?  What an idiot he was.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

“Christianity might be a good thing if anyone ever tried it” - George Bernard Shaw

dude, why do you make me google "George Bernard Shaw"?  What an idiot he was.

Because he went to the same school as me, obviously.


Plus he was correct on that mark, regardless of anything else he said.