why do liberal (pick-and-choose) christians criticise "fundamental" christians.......?

Question

the word "fundamental" means:

serving as, or being AN ESSENTIAL PART OF, a foundation or basis

in other words, it is fundamentalists who are the most honest adherents of christian teaching

proving my point that religion is evil and divisive and there will always be bloody massacres while religion is around

Answer 1

I think really you are confusing the issue. Bloody massacres are around because people in general will argue about anything. It's a little too convenient to blame all war on religion.

Answer 2

"Fundamental" Christians can just as much be accused of "pick and choose" as "liberal" Christians. They tend to like the "hellfire" bits and are not so keen on the "love and mercy" bits. The main difference between the two is that fundamentalists ignore the context in which the bible is written and focus on the words themselves, which they interpret literally. Liberals try to understand the bible within the context in which it is written. Which side is the "more honest" is up for debate.

There will always be bloody massacres whether or not religion is around - that is human nature, and religion has very little to do with it. You offer no "proof" of your point at all.

Answer 3

Fundamentalists Christians have far to much to say about how this country is run!
I am a liberal, and I am a Chriistian, and the two do not always connect! I believe abortion is wrong, but I believe in a woman's right to choose! It is her decision to make, not mine! I believe that two people should have the right to get married, whoever they are! It should be for everyone, or no one!
Religion has no place in government! The two should be kept separate, at all times!

And as for religion being responsible for massacres? Wherever you have people, you will have massacres! They don't need a reason to kill each other!

Answer 4

Fundamentalists can "adhere" to the teachings to the point of being closed minded and unnecessarily stubborn.


Liberal Christians aren't "pick and choose." I can't speak for the others, but I read the Bible in its social, historical, and political context; and take into consideration its genre and original intended purpose.

I have nothing but love for fundamentalists, I come from a family full of them. I respect their devotion and faith. It's just that they can be (not all of them, not always) all hellfire and brimstone and not enough love and tolerance. If we're to follow the example of Jesus, we should focus on the latter.

Answer 5

Well, dear, a more accurate way to describe those we do not wish to be associated with is "extremist" or "literalists"... Those who take the letter of the law and twist it into something unhealthy, and which it was never meant to be.

I would say the most divisive thing within humanity is our ability to think. No-one would ever think they were better than anyone else if we all just stopped thinking. So, if you would like to stop divisions, why not apply this little snippet from Ghandi:

"Be the change you want to see in the world."

Be a good example for us all, and please stop thinking. Your brain is causing divisions between us.

Love and Peace.

Answer 6

Christ's teachings are straightforward. Anyone wishing to be called 'Christian' and be selective, or imparts any 'spin,' is insincere. It is as simple as that. By the way Mesun 1408, modern translations of The Bible are more dependable. Much knowledge has been gained via the dead sea scrolls etc.The English Standard Version, prepared by about 200 academics from many churches etc replaces the word 'kill' with 'murder.'

Answer 7

You can't prove anything with a dictionary.

Fundamentist is a term attached to a certain type of Christianity. If that type Christianity is not honest adherence and that's what "fundamental" means then the term is simply misapplied. If I called them "Intellectual Christians" they wouldn't suddenly become smart, would they?

Answer 8

Religion should be banned.
The Spanish Inquisition where all `non-believers` were tracked down, tortured then killed. Protestants warring against Catholics, and vice versa, in Ireland. Ireland was invaded by King William the Fourth of Orange to make people of Ireland change their religions, it didn`t work. Queen Mary burned at the stake those who were not of her religion...and so on.
That is what religion does for you, murder, beatings, crucified as per jesus, whippings and so on and so on.
It should be banned because it does not, and never has, done anyone any good, only harm and dissention.
AND, AS ONE ONE HERE STATES: YOU CANNOT PROVE ANYTHING WITH A DICTIONARY - WELL, YOU CANNOT PROVE ANYTHING WITH `BIBLE QUOTES` EITHER!
This may not have answered your question, but at least I`ve had a say in it!!
Good luck with it

Answer 9

If the fundamentalists are the most honest adherents why do they try so hard to find a way out of "Thou shalt not kill"?

Answer 10

The argument, as I comprehend it, is that that's the life of average Christians, no longer their words or strikes, that facilitates fundamentalism. it extremely has similarities to alcohol. maximum adults in Western worldwide places drink alcohol a minimum of often times and it extremely is socially appropriate to accomplish that. This creates our environment needed for the advent of alcoholism. that isn't any longer appropriate that leisure drinkers condemn alcoholics. It keeps to be authentic that if alcohol weren't socially appropriate, and if maximum individuals did no longer drink, fewer people may be alcoholics and people who have been may be extra obtrusive. submit to in innovations, of direction, that that isn't any longer a controversy meant to teach why average faith is erroneous, or why you are able to desire to no longer be a average Christian, yet basically why average faith is risky. The argument I truly have defined may be no much less valid if average Christianity have been suited suited. I advise, the superiority of technology probably contributes to the life of pseudoscience, yet that doesn't advise that the former could desire to be deserted.