Religious Consistency
RSmitty brought this email to my attention, and while I don’t agree with all of it (especially the single mother nonsense) it is a refreshing read. Hmmm… wonder when this letter will be posted at Delaware Politics? Surely, they would embrace this philosophy with open arms.
We are Bible believing, fundamentalist Christians.
Having read & believing the Bible in it’s entirety, someone needs to explain to us where the Bible justifies us having guns and especially using them. We know Bible believing Christians that are very concerned that Obama is going to take away their guns. I guess they don’t trust the Lord to take care of them.
I believe many people who call themselves fundamentalist Christians need to really study what the Bible says about dealing with our enemies, the poor and strangers. They need to understand what Jesus meant when he told us not to fear those who would will kill our bodies, but to fear Him who could send both body & soul to hell. (Not the exact quote).
The Bible also tells us that all leaders are essentially put in power by God (or God allows leaders to be in power). So these new Republicans need to explain to me how, if they believe the Bible, they can justify attacking Obama if the God they believe in has allowed him to be in power.
Here’s another point my husband and I talk about. We joke that Republicans are Pro-Life until birth. Then it’s the heck with you. You had the kid now you deal with it. Not our problem.
My husband and I are pro-life. We take the stand that every child needs a father and a mother. If you are not married and pregnant, give the child up for adoption or marry the father (wow-we agree with Coulter on something!). We have seen first hand and on more than one occasion what happens to the child when he grows up in a single mother household (when the mother became pregnant and did not marry the father). It is never a happy picture. We’ll say it again-children need a good father. A good grand father is no substitute for a good father.
We also believe homosexuality is a sin. That being said, we do not hate homosexuals. We let God be the judge. We feel that divorce between heterosexual couples is just as damaging to the sanctity of marriage as allowing homo sexuals to marry. But you will never hear that out of the sanctity of marriage Republicans.
Oh well, in a nutshell that’s our humble opinion. Keep the E-mails coming. You are doing a great job of keeping us informed. Hope all is well with you and your wife.
Thanks again.
Tags: Religion
It is a bunch a dribble. I doubt that it will ever be posted on Delaware Politics unless it needed a rebuttal. Take the marriage line, if homosexual marriage would be as damaging as divorce, then why would you not oppose adding to the chaos? (I presume no fault divorce which I have criticized on numerous occasions, but surely when someone abuses the marriage relationship and endangers the other party or children divorce is better than continuing a dangerous marriage.)
As for the pro-life dribble, that is a crock. Who should care for your children? You should. If you need help, I should give it to you. How many pro-life people are running the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, prison fellowship, youth camps, Church shelters and soup kitchens, after school programs, alternative schools, and a thousand other organizations? Pro-life people are at least as active in the community as anyone else. That is either a liberal talking point or the person needs to do a survey of caregivers. In fact, surveys show that Christian conservatives are more likely to give money to charity and volunteer than the general public.
If the person read the Bible through then he/she should remember that those in power were often criticized for doing wrong. Herod, The Sanhedrin, Babylon, the Kings, and others were all criticized by believers.
As for the right to bear arms (there were no guns at the time of scripture), the LORD told the disciples if they had no sword sell an extra coat and buy one. He was not advocating killing people, but endorsing self defense when going through dangerous areas. The New Testament also endorsed soldiering as a profession. The first gentile believer was a Roman Centurion in Acts 10.
It just seems like more of the same. It hardly seems interesting enough for a post. Thanks for the editorial suggestion though.
Hey, Ignorant Man, the word you’re looking for is “drivel,” not “dribble.” The former is what your comment is full of.
Wow! That really got to you, David. Hit a nerve, did it?
I guess it did get to him. I wonder if these heathens that wrote this should be burned at the stake? I’d think with all that drivel they espouse, though, they should have more than enough fluid to put down the flames.
Unbelieveable. Grace is lost, I fear forever.
P – to add to the email communications we had yesterday, I overlooked that part about the single parent. While my view is a fully-involved dual-parent household is preferable, I will just as quickly point out that my oldest nephew was raised just fine by his single mother (for most of his adolescent years). So, I depart on that point they made, too. The bigger point is, though, that there does appear to be sanity (only to be kicked in the teeth by intolerance) on that end, albeit rare (and brave).
It is refreshing to hear about a professed “Bible believing, fundamentalist Christian” trying to follow the teaching of Christ.
I always love it when non-Christians argue that they are better qualified to define what the proper behavior is for Christians.
Frankly, I find most of the arguments above to be pretty shallow — indeed, I find them to be after-the-fact eisegesis.
The letter writers are Christians, RWR, but I’m sure you’ll have no problem placing them in the “them” category. After all, you guys excel at “us” vs “them.” Kinda like who’s a “real” American or a “real” Republican.
RWR is correct that people who are not devote like to spend time trying to redefine the meaning of being devote for those who are. I don’t think that he was speaking about the letter writers but the commenters. The arguments are shallow and do not match up to reality. They take about 3 minutes to explode. That does not reflect on the writers’ Christianity, just their political and theological understanding.
BTW in case you guys wonder, in Foxfire I am Republican David. In IE, I am David Anderson. That is just so Xstriker doesn’t get in one of his mystery solving modes. It just happens to what is saved.
I’m arguing the rest of you who are arguing that this couple, outside of the mainstream of Christian belief, are the ones doing it right and that the majority of Christians are wrong.
And to make clear how wrong just one point of their is, consider that their argument about not opposing Obama would also have required Christians to be supportive of the policies of Hitler — after all, it was obviously God’s will that he was in power.
Easy there, Pandora, it’s often difficult to read everything, let alone the opening sentences of someone’s argument when you already have a predisposed opinion of that person.
edit: well, that is what we call bad timing!
RWR: I always love it when non-Christians argue that they are better qualified to define what the proper behavior is for Christians.Letter writer (opening): We are Bible believing, fundamentalist Christians.Having read & believing the Bible in it’s entirety, …
🙄
To add, which is not present here, the distribution of this came through the network run by Jud Bennett, who happens to know the authors of this letter and also idenitified them as Christians.
That does not reflect on the writers’ Christianity, just their political and theological understanding.
Huh? Wouldn’t their theological understanding affect their Christianity?
I just can’t believe anyone would have to defend their stance from accusations such as “drivel,” “crock,” and that it was worthy of only a rebuttal.
When I disagree with the President’s policies, I do not do so in a way that is disrespectful. I pray for him. I honor him as our leader. I do not honor him more than I honor my country. When he proposes something that I believe will harm the country, it is my duty as both an American and a Christian to speak up. When he makes proposals to fund abortion and repeal DOMA, do I obey God or honor man? The Apostles made that quite clear in ACTS 5:29 “Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than men!”
That argument like the rest made in the letter just seems absurd. As Isaiah said, let righteousness be the line and justice the plummet.
What this letter appears to be is two people genuinely attempting to come to grips with their faith, from a fundamentalist perspective that suggests that Christians should not need anyone else to tell them what the Bible means, since it means what it says. Obviously, the issue is the many Christians not only believe the Bible speaks to them directly, but that the interpretation they have received or constructed is that which should govern everyone else’s interpretation. This is David A.’s fallacy: he knows what the Bible means to him, and that therefore defines the legitimate range of Christian belief, with everyone from Clement to Tertullian to Aquinas to Luther to Neibuhr be damned. If it does not comport with David’s understanding, he has no responsibility to re-examine his own beliefs before he castigates others as not being Christian.
The irony of all this is that the “Biblical inerrancy” or “Biblically literal” school of thought came into existence only in the 15th-16th Century, initially as an internal political movement of dissident churches against the Vatican. Before that, the mainstream of Christianity all the way back to the earliest commentators at the end of the 1st Century AD have held that the Bible was a mix of allegory, history, prophecy, and commentary, and that it had to be interpreted rather than always read for literal face value. Most of the thrust of Christianity is the overt re-interpretation/reconstructing of the Hebrew Bible away from being a work in and of itself into a prophetical prologue to the Gospels that had to be read as code (stealing the pesher interpretive tools from a number of fringe Jewish sects, including the Enochians at Qumran).
Fortunately, no one has left David or RWR or me or anybody else with the ability to determine who are and who are not Christians. The importance of this letter is that it reveals the breadth of opinion and interpretation possible even among evangelicals and self-proclaimed fundamentalists, something that is all too easy to ignore.
Individuals have the right to live their lives based on whatever bullshit they wish… just leave the rest of us alone if you don’t mind.
Full disclosure – I have read the bible in its entirety as well. I have also read the criticisms and historical contextual analysis of Metzger, Ehrman, King, Tabor, RE Friedman, etc. Your biblical quotations in support of your positions are fucking hilarious. Perfect for the cocktail hour!
Individuals have the right to live their lives based on whatever bullshit they wish… just leave the rest of us alone if you don’t mind.
That’s the essence of the problem, DG. Most people (on both the far right and far left) believe that their interpretation of “freedom to live their lives” is the one everybody else should follow.
Or: everybody demands the freedom that they are not usually willing to extend to the rest of us.
Just out of curiosity, what are the demands of the far left that can be categorized in this way? I can only think of one: banning guns. Conservatives like to create straw men concerning other beliefs. For example, when we say we want equal rights for homosexuals, conservatives say we want special rights for the gays, and even go far to say there is some evil gay agenda to convert children and even adults into gays. The same is true for abortion. We just want the right to choose, while some conservatives and the far portray that as advocating the use of abortion as birth control, and where we advocate aborting every child just because we wish abortion to be legal.
While I don’t like guns, I’ve never advocated banning them. As a cop’s kid, I’ve had an up close and personal account of what the “arm yourself to the teeth” crowd seem to fantasize about.
Yes, I agree, Pandora. I don’t want to ban guns either. But I am as not idiotic enough to think waiting periods, bans on cop killer bullets, background checks and closing the gun show loophole are tyrannical.
There you go again. You folks make a theologically based post and then criticize people for bringing in theology. I sometimes wonder if Dorian even reads the posts before commenting.
DD, how about individual mandates on healthcare, forcing people to pay for abortion, sensitivity training for homosexuality, CAFE, and a host of other issues. The PC left exists for the sole purpose of enforcing its vision of social and economic experimentation.
The idea that “the original scriptures is without error” is not a new concept. The doctrine called Biblical Innerrancy is from the 15th and 16 century, but its concept is from the very beginning of the church. All scripture is given by inspiration of GOD, according to the Apostle Paul. I have read several of the Church Fathers and many excerpts from their work. They revered the Scripture. In fact if every New Testament were destroyed tonight, I could recreate it from the quotes of the Chruch Fathers almost to the verse.
The Scripture is not open to private interpretation. If what I think contradicts the breath of the teachings of the Churches, then I am going to look where I might be mistaken. It is Divine revelation not subject to higher criticism. Of course the Bible has allegory, history, prophesy, and doctrine. It is about the Living GOD reaching into a real history and loving real people. Do you interpret history or understand it? The key to an allegory comes from the historical context and the literary tradition not a modern guess.
I don’t go for this liberal theology nonsense put out by non-believers at the end of the 19th century. It is frankly gutter theology unworthy of the Church. The idea that man is worthy to bring higher reasoning to discover the nuggets of truth in the Scriptures is arrogance on a par with the original fall. It has been discredited by the weight of historic evidence found in the last half of the twentieth century. The people were real, they lived in real towns, and had the lives that were recorded.
Everyone in america is exactly the same with the same beliefs. Isn’t that why the “one size fits all” approach to everything works as beautifully as it does?
The idea that man is worthy to bring higher reasoning to discover the nuggets of truth in the Scriptures is arrogance on a par with the original fall.
God wants us to be stupid?
DelDem — I’ll support a waiting period for purchasing guns when the criminals will abide by an equivalent waiting period for making me or someone else a crime victim.
I don’t know why you give these lunatrons a forum, Pandora.
“The Bible also tells us” – anyone who begins a sentence like is just looking for trouble.
The Scripture is not open to private interpretation.
I don’t go for this liberal theology nonsense put out by non-believers at the end of the 19th century.
Gee, sounds like a private interpretation to me.
As for your use of “the Churches,” which ones? The Society of Friends who believe strongly in no dominating clergy and everyone waiting patiently for individual revelation; the Anglican Church that annoints openly gay bishops; the Catholic Church that refuses to allow women to be priests or priests to marry; the Mennonite Church which requires conscientious objection to war; the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which claims additional revelations; the Presbyterians who believe in pre-destination…
Do “the Churches” mandate salvation through grace or salvation through works. Ooops. Depends on which church you belong to.
There is a vast difference between the concept of Biblical Inerrancy and the concept of Sacred Scripture–too bad you fail to make the distinction. The Apostle Paul certainly did.
Jews don’t recognize Jesus as the Messiah. Protestants don’t recognize the Pope as the head of the Church, and Baptists don’t recognize each other in the liquor store.
The price of tea in China is.
What does that have to do with whether or not higher criticism is to be considered valid or heresy in Christian circles?
Steve, the inspiration of Scriptures is something common to all. Some may have different application, but that is far different from denying them as Truth. Most of the examples that you site are from church traditions that do not claim scriptural mandate. Some like the refusal of priests to be married are specifically said to be church tradition not scriptural mandate. About the only ones held strongly to scriptural by its adherents is conscientious objection to war and Predestination.
I don’t know any Church that mandates salvation. It is an act of GOD’s grace shown through works. Where people draw the line is a matter of emphasis.
You mistake doctrinal differences for error in the scripture.
Private interpretation is just that. Higher Criticism is all about the individual deciding what is true not learning the truth which has been revealed. Individual revelation comes from GOD and is essential.
Liberals treat religious inconsistencies like conservatives treat global warming….any misalignment and they’re off the hook…
If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit!
…Baptists don’t recognize each other in the liquor store…
Yeah, I’ve noticed that, too.
D’oh! Wait. I mean…er…uh….
oh man.
Except not all varieties of Baptists consider drinking a sin.
Except not all varieties of Baptists consider drinking a sin.
PHEW! 😉
I don’t know any Church that mandates salvation. It is an act of GOD’s grace shown through works. Where people draw the line is a matter of emphasis.
David it becomes fairly pointless to argue with you when you don’t actually understand Christian theology. The distinction between salvation through grace or works is the fundamental issue of the Protestant Reformation and the fundamental distinction between Evangelicals and Catholics, along with the idea of the corruption of reason.
Catholicism considers the Evangelical concept be a mistaken interpretation called “cheap grace.” Evangelical theologians follow (among others) Jonathan Edwards in the assumption that no works can earn salvation due to original sin.
Catholicism explicitly rejects Biblical literalism/inerrancy for the concept of a Bible mediated through interpretation and tradition. Individuals make a personal choice about interpretation primarily when choosing to follow a particular doctrine or dogma.
Your Christianity as espoused in these posts is full of your personal interpretations–you even say so in about every other paragraph, only to turn around and deny it. That’s OK: follow your faith any way you want. But it would be less hypocritical on political issues to stop pretending that “the Church” or Christians speak with one voice, because they don’t, and you have not been appointed by anyone except yourself as the decider of who is a Christian and what values all Christians must share.
Will I burn in hell for enjoying Steve’s take-down of David? 👿
P – I think the “twisted” 😈 emoticon would have worked much more nicely here.
Now, back I go trying to recognize other Baptists in the liquor store. Aw, man, did I say that out loud again? D’OH! 😯
All credit to Dr. Newton, but exposing David as a “lost puppy” here isn’t exactly difficult.
You have a point, Smitty.
BTW, thanks for the letter. Who knew it would hit so many nerves!
BTW, thanks for the letter. Who knew it would it so many nerves!
Clarification to others: I was not the author of that letter, but aside from a couple of views that I don’t agree with, overall, I am supportive of it. The letter was written by a couple, presumably from Sussex County, who sent it to Jud Bennett with the intent of distribution to his large email network.