[The term "fundamentalist" was hijacked by Pat Robertson and his ilk to refer to those who favor literally interpreting the Bible (while ignoring the inherent contradictions involved by doing so) and who try to make Christianity into a legalistic, instead of a loving, religion.]
Anyone who believes that there are contradictions in a literal interpretation of the Bible believes so only because they don't know the Bible.
[We need to return to real fundamentalism -- focusing on the fundamentals of Jesus' message of love for one another, helping the poor, etc.]
Actually, that wasn't the fundamentals of Jesus' message. In fact, it was really a peripheral issue.
The fundamentals of Jesus' message were:
1. Mankind is sinful
What you're talking about is the Social Gospel, not the Biblical Gospel.
26 comments
Perfect post for showing what wrong with the whole idea of religion. All religions reflect what each individual brings to it. A loving, kind person reads the bible and sees a message of peace and love, an asshole well.... you get the idea.
Let's see, we've got
-Confusing the old testament with the new
And as an added bonus, he's a chickenhawk. I think that's everthing
The fundamentals of Jesus' message were:
1. Mankind is sinful
BZZZT. Thanks for playing, no shiny new car for you.
These are the fundamentals of Paul's writings. The "fundamentals" of Jesus's teachings, if indeed there are any, are most likely his response to the question "What is the greatest commandment?", which was "Love the Lord your God" and "love thy neighbor as thyself."
If you want to make Paul your main prophet, go right ahead. But please don't pretend you're actually following Christ when you do it.
Actually, WarEagle is quite correct. The fundie interpretation of the gospels is the most accurate one. The so-called "social gospel" is the product of 19th century liberal protestant reformers who were trying to get away from the more nasty implications of calvinism (of course this is a bit of an oversimplification).
This is the problem that all so-called moderate people of faith have. Whether you're talking about xianity, judaism or islam, it's the viscous hardliners who have scripture on their side.
For example, you can got through the NT and do a count of verses that support a "nice" interpretation, and then do a count of verses that support a "mean" interpretation. It doesn't make a difference if you do this by gospel, or the NT as a whole; the results are the same. The "mean" verses far outnumber the "nice" ones.
Mkay, so we downplay any sections in the bible that could actually help people be nice to one another, and focus on the more oppressive stuff.
Check.
[Even more determined to pursue my humanistic atheism.]
"Anyone who believes that there are contradictions in a literal interpretation of the Bible believes so only because they don't know the Bible."
No. Anyone who believes that there are contradictions in a literal interpretation of the Bible believes so only because they read the Bible and they have an I.Q. greater than room temperature.
So says a person who claims a literal interpretation of the Bible, and then inserts PAUL's message into Jesus mouth, thereby cherry-picking the Bible to fit his message. And "born-again" is the biggest piece of Biblical interpretative crap ever and an excuse for huge amounts of evil and bigotry hidden under the guise of God's word. It is the fundie's version of Catholic "indulgences", pre-sold, bought forgiveness of personal misbehavior and evil attacks on others.
What szena said. If the parable of the sheep and the goats is to be believed, then that "peripheral issue" is entirely necessary for salvation, and an awful lot of "saved Christians" are on their way to hell.
Social Gospel, indeed. That was JC's whole point: getting along with your fellow humans....
Try the Gospel of Thomas.
Oh, yeah...chuck the Tanakh-Plus, while you're at it.
Due to Saul/Paul's overbearing influence, the bible is nothing more than a pharisee's handbook. Fundies are both the victims and perpetrators of Saul's Revenge.
Those who do, do. Those who can't, teach.
Those who can't read, preach.
Actually, both Fundamentals are correct, to an extent. (Except that "born again" twaddle).
Jesus came to redeem us of sin, yes; but he also came to tell us about God and His commandments, which include loving and caring for others.
So, you're saying that those who don't believe that snakes speak or that men live up to 900 years don't know the Bible(luckily for them if so)?, or that Jesus wasted his time with sentences like love thy neighbour, I was hungry and you fed me, do unto others what you want to be done, love thy enemy, ....................?
The fundamentals of Jesus' message were:1. Mankind is sinful Redundant. He told us that in the first book of genesis. 2. Jesus came to seek and to save that which is lost Matthew 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. He didn’t want gentiles to know his message. Wrong two. 3. Jesus is our sacrifice for sin Yet it still exists and there is still more for each person to do on their own. 4. We must repent of our sin and be born again Making the sacrifice unnecessary. What you're talking about is the Social Gospel, not the Biblical Gospel."That’s bullshit, the rest of the post is bullshit, and pat Robertson is bullshit. You get an A’ for failing.
"Anyone who believes that there are contradictions in a literal interpretation of the Bible believes so only because they don't know the Bible.
Really? Let's try this, then.
Genesis 1:24 - "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so."
But wait, what's this I see in Genesis 2!?
Genesis 2:7 - "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
Well, that looks like a contradiction to me. Explain that one, o scholar of BS.
So all that time spent wandering around, feeding widows and their children (read = single mothers) was just for kicks? And the Sermon on the Mount? He was just screwing around with a couple of ideas. Really, it was the rough draft for Jesus' gangster rap.
Yes, the Salvation of our souls is tied only in the Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary.
However, he also told us that after we accept him, we should stop being douchebags.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
