A question about Christian fundamentalists.

[MH1]

I know some fundamentalists, but I'll admit I don't have the stomach for lengthy theological discussions with them.

One thing occurred to me recently that seems really weird about fundamentalism. Rather than attempt to overcome my aversion to actually asking one I know, I thought maybe someone here would have an idea what the official line is.

So here's the question. The fundamentalists I know seem to think that the Bible is the perfect and unerring Word of God. They also believe that Catholics aren't 'true' Christians and that Catholicism is like a cult. Or something like that.

But as understand it, on a basic level, the Bible is actually just a selection of religious texts that were selected by the Roman emperor Constantine. Ok technically the Council of Nicea, right? But basically under the leadership of Constantine. Who, some say, adopted and promoted Christianity as a political tool to unify his empire.

So the question is, how do Christian fundamentalists square the Roman Emperor's key role in selecting the books of the Bible, with their denunciation of the Roman Catholic Church?

Or am I just totally confused about all of this? (that's a strong possibility and I don't mind anyone pointing it out, as long as you fill in all the stuff I'm missing. )

Discuss. (please

[laconicsax]

1. They do it the way most Christians do:

Cherry-picking and ignoring. No one believes the entire Bible is literally true; people just use it to support their a priori beliefs.

Think women should be subservient? There's a passage for that.
Think women should be equal? There's a passage for that too.

Both "sides" also say the other is misinterpreting scripture.

[MH1]

2. Yeah, in general, that's what I figure

but I was wondering if anyone actually knew the exact responses they would give on this question.

I'm so curious I may have to actually bring it up in discussion with actual fundamentalists. I shudder to think ...

So I'm trying to get off easy here.

[laconicsax]

3. My guess is that most fundamentalists are too stupid to have any idea what the question is about.

[cbayer]

11. While I think you may be right about fundamentalists, I don't

think "most Christians" do this.

I think most Christians, and in particular progressive Christians, realize that the bible is a book of stories written by humans. Most Christians I know see it as metaphor and not literal. Some of the stories are good and provide some guidance or insight. Other stories are, frankly, pretty despicable.

[laconicsax]

14. You're actually doing it too.

The only difference is that you cherry-pick the good parts and reject the bad. It's a good thing.

The fact is that almost no one takes the Bible literally or metaphorically as a whole. The precepts of Christianity require that at least some parts be taken literally--and there are over 40,000 sects that disagree on exactly which parts.

[cbayer]

15. Which should be the case with any historical documents, no?

Have you seen Kurosawa's movie Rashomon? This film is probably one of the most profound I have ever seen.

The crux of the story is that there is no single truth. Every individual experiences every event differently and tells a different story about the actual event.

So when a story is written, it reflects what the person writing it experienced and can't be taken as absolute truth.

I don't agree that the precepts of Christianity require that any part of the bible be taken literally, although there are certainly fundamentalists that do. People, Christian or not, can and should take what they find valuable and leave the rest.

[laconicsax]

17. I don't think it's that profound a film.

You're making my argument for me. Most Christians pick-and-choose which parts they want from the Bible. You're admitting to doing it here.

As to the precepts, unless you regard God to not be a real, existing entity at least the parts about God being real have to be literal. The parts about Jesus' sacrifice are also generally important, requiring that the parts about that be at least partially literal.

[MH1]

19. I did not suggest that 'most Christians' do it.

I am strictly concerned with the fundamentalist viewpoint because there are a few of them in my life. I don't know what the relative percentage of fundamentalists to other types of Christians are, and it's not relevant to the question.

I do think that most non-fundamentalist Christians at least understand that the books of the Bible were written (and translated, let's not forget) by humans. Perhaps there is some disagreement on the extent to which those involved in writing/selecting/translating were 'divinely inspired'.

[cbayer]

28. No you did not suggest that. I was responding to another member's reply.

I agree with your post here.

[MH1]

29. Oops, sorry about that. Sometimes I misread threads that way.

I need to be more careful about who is replying to who.

I think it is worse on DU3 but not sure.

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. I think they would say the Catholic church slowly became corrupt

not that anything associated with Rome has always been bad. The Council of Nicaea was all bishops from the Empire (who were in the 'orthodox' majority, anyway), and not controlled by the Roman Archbishop, ie Pope. I don't think Constantine had input into the choice of books, either - he himself wanted a suitable official religion, and told the bishops to come up with an agreed answer, but was no scholar himself (I'm not even sure if he was baptised).

Fundamentalists' objections to the RC church stem from those made by Luther, Calvin etc. in the Protestant Reformation, which were that the Catholic church had become a power structure that claimed special insight into the 'truth' about God, and had become in many cases corrupt. They would presumably say God guided the choice of books. Plus there is a slight difference in the books of the Old Testament between Protestant and Catholic churches anyway, so they can point at a later decision by Protestants to not accept the Nicaean decision as 'infallible'.

[MH1]

21. That sounds about right.

Having read some other replies here, it seems there are different flavors of Christian fundamentalism as well. The ones I know have told me that the problem with the Catholic church is that it 'worships' Mary instead of just God. (I know, what?) Maybe there was some other stuff in there too, like what you said, but I guess I got stuck on that one.

But if the Nicaean decision wasn't infallible, how do they get that their particular flavor of writers/selectors/translators was? (yeah I know. one of life's mysteries I guess)

[skepticscott]

22. I think you give most fundamentalists

Credit for too much thought and knowledge. I think their attitudes towards Catholics are largely a result of a much more vague sense of their being "different", and their inbred certainty that any different way of looking at and thinking about god much be wrong.

[darkstar3]

5. They don't know.

Do you think that pastors at evangelical churches around the country, and especially in the deep south, necessarily have any theological or historical training?

The church my parents go to had, for 12 years, a pastor who never studied theology or history. He just read the bible a lot and had a voice and nature that people took to.

Many of them just don't know how the bible came to be what it is.

[MH1]

23. The fundamentalists that I know have at least an opinion on it

and will say that they've given it great study. Of course their study comes mostly (if not all) from material put out by their church or 'approved sources' so it's not like they've had formal history in an actual college class or anything.

Now that I have some thoughts of what to expect (thanks everyone!) maybe I will brave an actual discussion with them.

The problem is that theological discussions with them get very long-winded. At best. Once the door is open, escape is difficult. Sigh.

[iris27]

6. Most honestly don't know, especially in denominations where pastors generally

don't attend any sort of seminary. Weirdly, many fundamentalists just don't look into the history of their faith that much.

I grew up Lutheran, which is a very nerdy and self-examining denomination, and many Missouri Synod Lutherans do believe that the Bible is the inerrant and inspired Word of God. I learned in my parochial high school about the Council of Nicea, from an ordained Lutheran pastor. Lutherans generally do not believe the evangelical nonsense that Catholics aren't "true" Christians, though. They think Catholics are wrong, of course, and that only (their specific flavor of) Lutheranism is truly right, but that generally anyone who believes Jesus died for their salvation "has it right enough for the endgame", as it were.

Basically what I was taught as a religious youngster was that the Catholics were the closest to "right" out of all historical versions of Christianity (Arianism, Gnosticism, Adoptionism, and later, Orthodox)...until, of course, Luther came along to fully set things right. Why did that take close to 1600 years? Well, that's not a question you want to ask in a parochial high school class taught by a pastor.

[Leontius]

7. Constantine and the First Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the Canon of the Bible so

there is need for them to relate their disagreements with RCC traditions with either one on that score.

[MH1]

20. Ok, then help me out, where did it come from?

I think you're the only one on the thread so far that's challenged one of the basic premises of my question. Please expand and provide the correct information. I'm here to learn, that is why I posted it.

(Part of what prompted me to post this question here was that I recently saw something about Constantine on TV. I was multitasking and may have missed key bits, but I thought it also talked about Constantine's role in the selection of the books of the Bible. And I've gotten that from other cursory studies of history. But, I'm not a historian, just a casual reader, so maybe I've misunderstood.)

Or, do you meant that is their response? If so, where do they say it came from?

[Leontius]

27. The Council was convened mainly to settle the Arian controversy over the nature of Christ

the canon of scripture was never brought up in any official manner. Constantine offered to pay the expense to have 50 bibles printed. The first official word on a settled Canon was from a small council of African bishops at Hippo Regis around the year 360 I think. The Cannon of today in the church of the West is the one proposed by Athanasius of Alexandria from his list of books he considered as 'scripture' but also included some considered questionable but beneficial for instruction. There are several 'offical' Canons today, the Western, the Orthodox, the Coptic, the Ethiopian, and the Armenian to name a few. The reason for the split in the Western Canon is really not known the loss of the Apohrypha from non RCC editions of the Bible was never an official action of any kind as far as I have been able to find. The RCC canon was only confirmed in reaction to Luther's claim that the Apochrypha was less then 'scriptural' in the 16th century.

[Irishonly]

8. Council of Nicea

My understanding of the Council of Nicea is that the smaller, more organized group got everything they wanted. The larger group which wanted more gospels showing Jesus as more human got zip. I learned that in an advent study where we were studying the early Christians. I have also read the book of Thomas and it is unlike the four gospels.

My sil is a fundamentalist and she has never heard of the Council of Nicea. She has no interest in knowing ancient history. She believes every word in the Bible is from God and asks no questions. I tried asking her about shrimp but to her way of thinking God changed his mind. I don't know why she doesn't think that God has changed his mind about other things. She absolutely doesn't want to hear about social class regarding homosexuality in ancient times.

Her pastor decided God wanted him to be a pastor and has had no formal training. Both of my pastors were trained and one has her doctorate. When she gives a sermon we also are given historical context.

She also believes that no Catholic, Mormon or any other religion will get to heaven. She includes them all in her belief they will be in hell and that is another question. In her heart she believes the only way going to heaven is her type of Christianity. I have always sort of thought she thinks I am headed to hell too because I am very liberal.

[MH1]

24. Don't feel bad, I've been informed that I am 'going to Hell'

But when I had this discussion with one, it was really only Mormons and Catholics who were identified as 'not really Christians'. Probably Jehovah's Witnesses would be included but I don't think that one came up. Quakers and Unitarians were actually a-ok. Which surprised me, but I tried not to show it. Didn't want to motivate a later revision. Since I might actually start going to one of those churches one day. Probably not, but maybe. (Unlike some folks, I do think that religion can have positive value. I just haven't made time for formal religious practice in my life for many years now.)

[Irishonly]

30. Religion is a mess

I have many friends that are many different faiths. I also have agnostic and atheist friends. We accept each other. My friends who are atheists know we do advent study after dinner. If I know the study makes them uncomfortable I will put if off for a couple of hours. They in turn, do not give us a bad time. My husband and I are both disabled and so we do not have long dinner parties. Respect is the key. My faith is important to me and I will not impose it on anyone else.

[FarCenter]

9. The Bible cannot be inerrant

Matthew 27:28
They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him.

Mark 15:17
They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him.

John 19:2
The soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head. They clothed him in a purple robe.

Since it is inconsistent, it cannot be inerrant.

[iris27]

13. Oh, but these are just the minor inconsistencies you'll find

in any comparison of multiple eyewitness accounts, don't you know...

I'd think its assertion that pi is exactly 3 (I Kings 7:23) or that the earth is not spherical (Matthew 4:8) are a little more troubling to claims of biblical inerrancy.

[cbayer]

10. A letter to Dr. Laura Schlesinger that was widely distributed on the web:

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1 ). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21 . In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

[MH1]

25. My favorite is c)

"most women take offense"

[TygrBright]

12. It gets weirder: Many of them believe that ONLY the translators...

...working in England in 1611 ACTUALLY "got it right" as far as what God REALLY meant. No other versions, no other translators, no other language, etc.

Now I'll grant you that the KJV English has a lovely resonance to it (especially the Psalms, some of which really do seem inspired...) but the notion that ONLY those forty or so C of E scholars actually sufficiently understood --not the earliest possible texts, mind you, which they did not have access to, but a mishmash of earlier translations and early texts-- is amazing.

As far as Constantine's role in the selection of texts (actually, there were several earlier, and several later canons, and still different versions accepted by different Christian denominations today, so even the Canon of Trent--which I think is what you're referring to--can't be considered exclusively authoritative and universal) that is largely apocryphal. The Canon of Trent was actually several iterations by several bodies in the late 4th and early 5th centuries, but it was largely officiated by Augustine and Innocent I.

Biblical literalism has always totally baffled me. It's like being let loose in the biggest gourmet shop in New York City and claiming that only the sliced turkey is worth eating.

amusedly,
Bright

[iris27]

16. Yeah, the KJV-only folks are a special kind of odd.

I remember coming across one such group (http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html) that also thought Christian contemporary music was evil...anything that included drums or tried to sound like "the music of the world" was bad. At the time, I was a Christian-metal-listening, cheesy-religious-t-shirt-wearing teenager, and I responded with all the outrage and Bible history that I could muster.

[laconicsax]

18. That site is always a riot.

I love the page on "counterfeit" Bibles.

[MH1]

26. Wow, that page is hilarious.

Although they might have a point about thee/thou vs. ye. I never thought the NKJV was so great, and didn't see the point in changing 'thou' to 'you' (we aren't all idiots. we can learn what little words mean). But I had no idea it was Satanic!