How do Christians possibly rationalize these things?

[midas77]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Literal interpretations of the Bible is a very modern development. In response to increased secularism, and the feeling that religion is losing it's place in society, some react by demanding extreme interpretations of religious texts. People fear losing their faith tradition and react by clinging to the tradition.

I will not contend with you in this DT since I feel you're more advanced than me in this matter. Care to give me a round down of this claim? Links will be appreciated.

[sue]

I found this thread quite interesting since I was an evangelical fundamentalist for over 20 years. There were always ways of explaining passages of the Bible that seemed wrong or cruel. I personally only know 3 born again Christians that do not believe that Jesus is God and part of the Trinity and they would not be accepted by most of the Christians I know.
It is a strong mindset that is continually, week after week, month after month, year after year, taught within a very narrow frame. Every word of the Bible is true (according to them) even the contradictions. Logical discussion is not encouraged, and tradition is hard to combat.
I have a friend (one of the above mentioned) that wrote a book stating that Christianity is a cult. I am not advocating this belief, but I do understand how he logically came to this conclusion.
I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but I found that thinking irritated people at church and any time I would bring up a problem in the Bible, I was not received warmly. Needless to say, I left the entire religion.

[FatalMuse]

I think that's a big part of the problem - many Christians seem to rely more heavily on the Old Testament Bible than on their own faith and the Gospel of Christ. I think Christianity could make a lot more headway today if they just adopted a progressive stance of spreading what Christ taught - human compassion above anything else - and stopped trying to defend Biblical dogma, much of which they inherited from a previous religion anyway. Christ was a symbol of progressive change, and not stubbornly clinging to old belief systems. I tend to view Jesus as a radical liberal, not a staunch conservative.

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by sue

I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but I found that thinking irritated people at church and any time I would bring up a problem in the Bible, I was not received warmly. Needless to say, I left the entire religion.

Thats silly. I think God wants us all to think. Its the fact that the people who go to church consider themselves too old to think, oh well. (a lot of them).

It's wrong to sin, but in order to not sin I have to think, and often times rationalize the situation. So the roman catholic church are hypocrites for not crediting Aquinas with the work he did to try to rationalize the christain perspective. (I think it was Aquinas anyways).

[Didymos Thomas]

I will not contend with you in this DT since I feel you're more advanced than me in this matter. Care to give me a round down of this claim? Links will be appreciated.

First, I wasn't trying to disagree with the whole of the post. Fundamentalism as a major religious movement does have roots in more extreme Protestant groups, Protestantism having come up in the dawn of the modern period. We can even find instances of fundamentalism dating back thousands of years. But today's fundamentalism is a world wide movement that has touched every major faith tradition. We even find fundamentalism in some of the Buddhists now fighting in northern Ceylon.

Scholarly study is not essential in interpreting the Bible. Not every soul needs to, or even can, pursue the path of scholar monk. For most people, congregation is invaluable. What is essential for a faith tradition is that the clergy, the teachers, pursue honest and open scholarly study of their scripture. These are the men who instruct and lead the congregations.

Don't get me wrong, I encourage scholarly study of scripture by everyone - even people who do not see themselves as spiritual. But the real issue is the education of the teachers - the idea is that you have the adept do the serious scholarly work that not everyone can do, and then have these learned souls instruct the congregation in a way that is relevant to the congregation. With proper spiritual guidance, the individual practitioner can read and interpret the Bible just fine for the sake of their spiritual path.

As for my post:

That's basically the run down. As far as links go, you might start with the relevant Wiki entries. Karen Armstrong has two books worth looking into, that I've read, and probably several more - The History of God and The Battle For God: A History of Fundamentalism. She begins the second book with a chapter on Jewish religious change after Isabella and Ferdinand issued the Edict of Expulsion in 1499.

If we want to discuss the trend towards Fundamentalism in a particular faith tradition, the historical events of influence will obviously change from tradition to tradition. In Europe, for example, the plague and similar deflating events like the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottomans played a role in the trend towards fundamentalism. But the underlying, unifying issue is the modern era of hyper-science, global perspective, and aggressive secularism.

Fundamentalism is just one reaction to the modern era. The Baha'i faith is, in my estimation, a very positive reaction to modernity.

I tend to view Jesus as a radical liberal, not a staunch conservative.

If Jesus lived, he was. Unfortunately, it didn't take long for the 'conservatives' to pirate the church of Christ. Constantine was a bright politician, from what I can tell.

So the roman catholic church are hypocrites for not crediting Aquinas with the work he did to try to rationalize the christain perspective. (I think it was Aquinas anyways).

Aquinas was one of the great scholastics. I have to be honest, I'm not terribly familiar with the Roman Catholic Church and her particular doctrines. But I was under the impression that the Church deeply reveres these men - St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas.

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Aquinas was one of the great scholastics. I have to be honest, I'm not terribly familiar with the Roman Catholic Church and her particular doctrines. But I was under the impression that the Church deeply reveres these men - St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas.

Revered ... the RCC would accustom the philosophers as heretical. I thought it was the dominican that revered the thinkers of that time.

[Didymos Thomas]

Revered ... the RCC would accustom the philosophers as heretical. I thought it was the dominican that revered the thinkers of that time.

Only if you disagreed with the ones they called Saints. Well, maybe not exactly, but basically.

I have no idea how the RCC approaches these things today. Peter Abelard was often under fire from the religious authorities, but Camila was reading Abelard and Heloise in the Sopranos and seemed to me to be a devout Roman Catholic.

[Holiday20310401]

Yeah there were too many anomalies in the religious influences of that time.

[Didymos Thomas]

Yeah there were too many anomalies in the religious influences of that time.

Yeah, it's a complex history, and I'm hardly an expert.

[socrato]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

Thats silly. I think God wants us all to think. Its the fact that the people who go to church consider themselves too old to think, oh well. (a lot of them).

It's wrong to sin, but in order to not sin I have to think, and often times rationalize the situation. So the roman catholic church are hypocrites for not crediting Aquinas with the work he did to try to rationalize the christain perspective. (I think it was Aquinas anyways).

Aparently my minister is at rivalry with the catholics. But we are both christians, I don't understand. So, are the catholics evil? In comparisson?