Pope Francis called right-wing Christian fundamentalism a sickness.

[Ritter]

Strange he would say this, coming from South America. The evangelical church is very active in helping people there. Only this morning in church we had a missionary to Brazil that we support, speak on the orphanages he has established and about how to donate to orphans.

Liberation theology has a way of blinding people when it comes to what is (and is not) good.

 

[SonInMe]

You would have to show me how any aspect of conservative ideology is against the bible...and what aspects of liberal ideology is found in the bible.

Afterall, there is a BIBLICAL reason why I am conservative.

Its ok to have ideologies as a christian, as long as its under God. EVERYTHING a christian does should be biblical.

By the way, the american catholic church is primarily liberal and much of those catholics are not exactly in agreement with papal edicts.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Yes but in Argentinean Liberation Theology the social Marxist analysis is not used but rather a historical-cultural analysis not based on class warfare as a determining principle for the interpretation of society and history and the pope IS from Argentina.

His concern for the poor is serious and genuine. But it's this willingness to cede God's morality on issues of sexual immorality, abortion, etc... to focus on the duty to help those who are poor and marginalized that I find disturbing for God's morality is an extension of who and what God is, what we are supposed to be progressing toward, and ultimately what we will spend eternity in. It's not negotiable. He certainly could uphold God's morality on the former while calling for action on the latter. Why isn't he proceeding in that manner?

Liberation theology has a way of blinding people when it comes to what is (and is not) good.

 

[XYZ]

Trinitarian doctrine is an essential of Christianity because it reveals who God is. You don't get to define who God is. God is who and what He is. Period.

The doctrine of the Trinity is not a theological concoction but one of the central planks of orthodoxy explicitly and implicitly revealed in scripture. So you're making a false assertion that it is not and we've had some legendary refutations of Oneness heresies on this forum to be sure.

Essentials of the Christian worldview aren't negotiable the way non-essentials are. Examples of the latter include a wide range of issues such as one's creation model (e.g. YEC, OEC, TE, etc...) and secondary essentials which carry no penalty.

It's fine to apply the scientific method to those as you suggest. But no scientific method is needed for the essentials of Christianity. They are irrefutably narrow in their scope as already defined and, of course, essential.

If trinitarianism is essential then there wouldn't be christians who don't believe in it.Trinitarian doctrination relies on a specific interpretation of certain verses, while 'oneness' as you called it can also be a valid interpretation from a scholarly point of view. I can see both sides of the argument and both hold due weight although in my own opinion, if I were to read the bible without the influence of any outside viewpoints I would land on the conclusion that there is one God and one son that mediates between God and man. The trinitarian theology holds less argument in my views. However, as I have said, from my readings, I gather that faith is more about a personal journey than a utiltarian endeavour and so I wouldn't discount the possibility that the trinitarian description appeals to a person. To that person, the trinitarian ideal is valid, and who am I to tell them that they are wrong? They may very well be right. As might I.

And that is the point I make about strict fundamentalism; that it does not allow for this discrepency even though it is plainly apparent that it exists, as evidenced by the differential opinions of different christian sects regarding such ideals as trinitarianism and oneness.

 

[leonardronaldo]

I get what you're saying. But fundamentalist Christianity is usually more than believing in a birth, death and resurrection. It usually requires people to conform to a strict, unrealistic, narrow interpretation. There's often no wiggle room for a personal reading.

An example of a fundamentalist structure in Christianity might be that someone has to believe in a trinitarian theology or else they are deemed by that particular fundamentalist group as someone who is not christian. Even though such a theology, from my understanding of the bible, doesnt come from any irrefutible evidence. In scholarly terms it's little more than a popular interpretation of the form of God.

Until something is outrightly proven to be correct, it should at least be understood, if not warranted and widely accepted, that several interpretations can hold equal weight.

This type of fundamentalism removes a party's right to think for themselves, insofar as they have no authoratitive control in their group. The person(s) in charge, however, may be completely able to dictate the theological requirements to their subordinates. That's a military operation more than it is a genuine, well-rounded theological family.

Lol as a non-Christian, why would you be unhappy with the idea of Triune God?

 

[leonardronaldo]

Yes BUT a right ideology is both necessary and desirable for a right relationship with Christ.

Let's use an example. Say a murderer accepts Christ and becomes a Christian but asserts that prejudice against the act of murder is a sickness ideologues engage in so he's going to be a Christian murderer. See the problem.

Nope, he is not a Christian murderer. He was never a Christian to begin with, then.

 

[leonardronaldo]

If trinitarianism is essential then there wouldn't be christians who don't believe in it.Trinitarian doctrination relies on a specific interpretation of certain verses, while 'oneness' as you called it can also be a valid interpretation from a scholarly point of view. I can see both sides of the argument and both hold due weight although in my own opinion, if I were to read the bible without the influence of any outside viewpoints I would land on the conclusion that there is one God and one son that mediates between God and man. The trinitarian theology holds less argument in my views. However, as I have said, from my readings, I gather that faith is more about a personal journey than a utiltarian endeavour and so I wouldn't discount the possibility that the trinitarian description appeals to a person. To that person, the trinitarian ideal is valid, and who am I to tell them that they are wrong? They may very well be right. As might I.

And that is the point I make about strict fundamentalism; that it does not allow for this discrepency even though it is plainly apparent that it exists, as evidenced by the differential opinions of different christian sects regarding such ideals as trinitarianism and oneness.

And what is your position? Not even a 'oneness' believer, i assume

 

[loveme1]

Coming from a man that bows to statues.. and takes flowers to pictures.

Okay.

 

[Mattw2]

The new Pope is on the ball once again!

Pope Francis Says Right-Wing Christians Have An Illness

Thanks for that information. I hadn't heard that. Isn't it true that people get the kind of leader that they deserve?

 

[SweetShelly35]

I don't put much stock into anything any Catholic has to say about their blasphemous denomination, much less less their false god pope.

 

[XYZ]

Lol as a non-Christian, why would you be unhappy with the idea of Triune God?

Where did I use the word 'unhappy'?

I'm just illustrating the irony of a specific fundamentalist belief being based from a few parts of a book when that book also contains information which allows for several interpretations on that specific topic.

Technically, for the belief to be merited as wholly fundamentalist (and therefore, correct in the fubdamentalist's mind), the conflicting parts would need to be discounted. But they are part of the same book, so they can't be. Therefore, several interpretations must be accepted.

 

[XYZ]

And what is your position? Not even a 'oneness' believer, i assume

My position thus far is as I have already said; both interpretations carry weight. And to relate that to the topic at hand; fundamentalism tends to require its adherants to ignore that fact.

 

[XYZ]

I don't put much stock into anything any Catholic has to say about their blasphemous denomination, much less less their false god pope.

I believe that catholicism existed before Protestantism so it would stand to reason that their traditions are closest to those of the original christian pioneers and to what they intended for the wider church. The Vatican also lies based in the closest proximity geographically to where the early pioneers founded the first churches. In saying that, just like many churches, their history has been controversial in some ways and in some places.

I think the catholic bible also contains many books which were removed to form the standard bibles of today.

As far as I am aware, the widely accepted modern catholic doctrinal focus on the charitable work is a more accurate representation of what early christianity was all about compared to the more metaphysical belief structure of the modern born agains. I say that because the ancint Jewish standpoints represent the basis for Jesus elaborations and the Jewish standpoint, to my reading, is much less metaphysically focused and more proactive than the born again viewpoint.

As to how that relates to this thread; again, catholicism tends to allow for several interpretive viewpoints among its followers, at least here in Europe. Whereas fundamentalism does not. The kicker is, how do you know that catholicism (and by proxy, all its adherants) worship the pope and are blasphemous? That's quite a large jump to make from the simple fact that they are headed under the banner 'catholicism' because although their collective name is the same, personal belief can vary under that heading.

So to personally label those people for blaspheming differently than you do, isnt that counteractive to the the purpose of collective christianity being a force for goodness? I use the term 'differently than you do', because you cant possibly be part of the sole, irrefutable & correct biblical standpoint, can you?

Can anyone?

These are some of the reasons I stopped being christian and denominative. To picture the answers to such questions requires a much broader lens than I once had.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

That's a false assertion. People don't believe in all sorts of things that ARE real and they do believe in all sorts of things that are NOT real. You're working from a position of fallacious reasoning.

In any event, I'm not suggesting one must hold a Trinitarian view in order to be saved but rather that the reality of God's triune nature is essential to understanding who God is and therefore essential to the Christian worldview.

It's your choice what you choose to believe and how you choose to live your life even when you choose to believe things that aren't real, disbelieve things that are, and align with God's morality or against it.

As I stated, there is good fundamentalism (e.g. people who align with truth in the right way) and bad fundamentalism (e.g. people who do not align with truth or not in the right way).

But now we're going in circles because you are making false assertions one of which is engaging in relativism where no relativism exists.

If trinitarianism is essential then there wouldn't be christians who don't believe in it.Trinitarian doctrination relies on a specific interpretation of certain verses, while 'oneness' as you called it can also be a valid interpretation from a scholarly point of view. I can see both sides of the argument and both hold due weight although in my own opinion, if I were to read the bible without the influence of any outside viewpoints I would land on the conclusion that there is one God and one son that mediates between God and man. The trinitarian theology holds less argument in my views. However, as I have said, from my readings, I gather that faith is more about a personal journey than a utiltarian endeavour and so I wouldn't discount the possibility that the trinitarian description appeals to a person. To that person, the trinitarian ideal is valid, and who am I to tell them that they are wrong? They may very well be right. As might I.And that is the point I make about strict fundamentalism; that it does not allow for this discrepency even though it is plainly apparent that it exists, as evidenced by the differential opinions of different christian sects regarding such ideals as trinitarianism and oneness.

 

[ChristianUk13]

The Pope is not right: he's wrong. Obviously Christians who adhere to scripture regarding issues of sexual immorality, protecting unborn babies, etc... while agitating for fiscal responsibility in government, etc... are not exhibiting signs of mental illness but rather displaying a real sense of responsibility.

What is fiscal responsibility to the conservative Christian, for the other Christian is humilition by the hands of the state, a restricted life experience where the only church or Christ shared is the Sunday building which accommodates the domineering middle-class out of touch demographic. The gospel according to the American Dream, i mean American Gospel.

What an ugly thing for him to say. To make such a distorted statement reflects poor character (e.g. mental and moral qualities distinctive to that individual).

The fact you're celebrating a religious leader calling a responsible demographic mentally ill is a reflection of your own poor character David which you have displayed repeatedly since arriving at CC. Chalk this up as yet one more example.

David was perhaps implying help the poor in the church first.. then worry about gay right and abortions.

 

[RickShafer]

Where did I use the word 'unhappy'?

I'm just illustrating the irony of a specific fundamentalist belief being based from a few parts of a book when that book also contains information which allows for several interpretations on that specific topic.

Technically, for the belief to be merited as wholly fundamentalist (and therefore, correct in the fubdamentalist's mind), the conflicting parts would need to be discounted. But they are part of the same book, so they can't be. Therefore, several interpretations must be accepted.

"That book allows" - as if the bible is vague.
As if it is tolerant of sin. As if God is waiting on the popular opinion of mankind.
Notice the decay by the world in this poster's mindset.
'Tolerance' means righteousness to him.
God must tolerate all forms of human rationalization to be righteous Himself.
- See, this is the insipid root of self love that wreaks in the souls of the unredeemed, much like a festering boil.
- - (Which is another signpost of original sin, and total depravity)

 

[Praus]

EVERYTHING a christian does should be biblical.

That's correct.

I curse them in the name of Jesus

 

[XYZ]

"That book allows" - as if the bible is vague.
As if it is tolerant of sin. As if God is waiting on the popular opinion of mankind.
Notice the decay by the world in this poster's mindset.
'Tolerance' means righteousness to him.
God must tolerate all forms of human rationalization to be righteous Himself.
- See, this is the insipid root of self love that wreaks in the souls of the unredeemed, much like a festering boil.
- - (Which is another signpost of original sin, and total depravity)

I think that's a bit dramatic.

The bible allows for different interpretations, or if it doesn't, well then people are very good at finding them. How many denominations of Christianity are there and how much do they differ in doctrinal analysis and interpretation?

That was a rhetorical question. But it proves the point.

 

[XYZ]

That's a false assertion. People don't believe in all sorts of things that ARE real and they do believe in all sorts of things that are NOT real. You're working from a position of fallacious reasoning.

In any event, I'm not suggesting one must hold a Trinitarian view in order to be saved but rather that the reality of God's triune nature is essential to understanding who God is and therefore essential to the Christian worldview.

It's your choice what you choose to believe and how you choose to live your life even when you choose to believe things that aren't real, disbelieve things that are, and align with God's morality or against it.

As I stated, there is good fundamentalism (e.g. people who align with truth in the right way) and bad fundamentalism (e.g. people who do not align with truth or not in the right way).

But now we're going in circles because you are making false assertions one of which is engaging in relativism where no relativism exists.

It's hardly a false assertion when its taken in its own proper context. Both doctrines, oneness, and trinitarianism, have a wide following because both viewpoints can seemingly be taken from the bible's wording. You're convinced of a truine nature because you believe it to be true. By your own reasoning (that I'm making a false assertion on the nature of belief in regards to this specific topic), and by me looking at the bible, I could, from my standpoint, find you as someone who believes in a fallacy. From the horses mouth, here's just one reason why;

Look;

'There is one God, and also one mediator between God and men; the man Jesus'

Here's another;

'You are my son, whom I love dearly'

and another;

'Father, father, why have you abandoned me?'

The list can go on. And why in the name of God, would God name himself Jesus, become human, let mankind torture and kill him and talk to himself?

The point is, I'm not coming from fallacious reasoning regarding oneness belief, because its basis is right there, in the very book you read. The same book that you get your trinitarian ideals from.

Therefore, (moreso for your sake than oneness believers, and for the sake of persecuted people everywhere), I think it's reasonable to allow for varying interpretations. Even if I do find some of them patently ridiculous ....

 

[leonardronaldo]

Where did I use the word 'unhappy'?

I'm just illustrating the irony of a specific fundamentalist belief being based from a few parts of a book when that book also contains information which allows for several interpretations on that specific topic.

Technically, for the belief to be merited as wholly fundamentalist (and therefore, correct in the fubdamentalist's mind), the conflicting parts would need to be discounted. But they are part of the same book, so they can't be. Therefore, several interpretations must be accepted.

Not true. The Word of God if to be read completely, doesn't need any additional interpretation from human.
Now since you are not even a unitarian, it would be pointless to discuss these things with you.
Let's discuss what you believe.