Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
I've heard a couple of times now people offering a faux praise of fundagelicals because they "take their scriptures seriously" as opposed to liberal Christians who "find excuses in interpretations." The idea, I suppose is that the fundagelicals simply take the bible at its word and believe what it says regardless of how idiotic it might sound. Although the ideas thus believed are absurd, the fundagelical at least has the moral courage to believe what the bible says.
By contrast, the liberal is embarrassed by the bible, yet as a Christian wants to retain it as part of his or her spiritual heritage. Like it or not, the bible is part and parcel of the religion. And so the liberal Christian tells fanciful stories to excuse those parts of the bible that are apparently not to his or her liking or evidently false in light of modern science (e.g., Genesis 1 and 2).
Thus the fundagelical is a brave idiot and the liberal Christian is a hypocritical sophist.
I can see no reason to support this parody of Christians, but then again, I'm unapologetically a Christian (though neither fundagelical nor liberal, which is a problem for a lot of people, especially those who hold to the position I've just described).
So for all those who so hate Christianity that you honestly think that Christians fall into one of these two camps (you can call me a liberal, I suppose), tell me: How is one to "read" the following text?
+++
'Is there anybody there?' said the Traveller,
Knocking on the moonlit door;
And his horse in the silence champed the grasses
Of the forest's ferny floor:
And a bird flew up out of the turret,
Above the Traveller's head
And he smote upon the door again a second time;
'Is there anybody there?' he said.
But no one descended to the Traveller;
No head from the leaf-fringed sill
Leaned over and looked into his grey eyes,
Where he stood perplexed and still.
But only a host of phantom listeners
That dwelt in the lone house then
Stood listening in the quiet of the moonlight
To that voice from the world of men:
Stood thronging the faint moonbeams on the dark stair,
That goes down to the empty hall,
Hearkening in an air stirred and shaken
By the lonely Traveller's call.
And he felt in his heart their strangeness,
Their stillness answering his cry,
While his horse moved, cropping the dark turf,
'Neath the starred and leafy sky;
For he suddenly smote on the door, even
Louder, and lifted his head:-
'Tell them I came, and no one answered,
That I kept my word,' he said.
Never the least stir made the listeners,
Though every word he spake
Fell echoing through the shadowiness of the still house
From the one man left awake:
Ay, they heard his foot upon the stirrup,
And the sound of iron on stone,
And how the silence surged softly backward,
When the plunging hoofs were gone.
+++
Is the "intellectually brave" and forthright way to interpret it the literal way as you say the fundagelical does? Or would it be best to treat it in some other way -- to "interpret" it? Please explain your answer.
By contrast, the liberal is embarrassed by the bible, yet as a Christian wants to retain it as part of his or her spiritual heritage. Like it or not, the bible is part and parcel of the religion. And so the liberal Christian tells fanciful stories to excuse those parts of the bible that are apparently not to his or her liking or evidently false in light of modern science (e.g., Genesis 1 and 2).
Thus the fundagelical is a brave idiot and the liberal Christian is a hypocritical sophist.
I can see no reason to support this parody of Christians, but then again, I'm unapologetically a Christian (though neither fundagelical nor liberal, which is a problem for a lot of people, especially those who hold to the position I've just described).
So for all those who so hate Christianity that you honestly think that Christians fall into one of these two camps (you can call me a liberal, I suppose), tell me: How is one to "read" the following text?
+++
'Is there anybody there?' said the Traveller,
Knocking on the moonlit door;
And his horse in the silence champed the grasses
Of the forest's ferny floor:
And a bird flew up out of the turret,
Above the Traveller's head
And he smote upon the door again a second time;
'Is there anybody there?' he said.
But no one descended to the Traveller;
No head from the leaf-fringed sill
Leaned over and looked into his grey eyes,
Where he stood perplexed and still.
But only a host of phantom listeners
That dwelt in the lone house then
Stood listening in the quiet of the moonlight
To that voice from the world of men:
Stood thronging the faint moonbeams on the dark stair,
That goes down to the empty hall,
Hearkening in an air stirred and shaken
By the lonely Traveller's call.
And he felt in his heart their strangeness,
Their stillness answering his cry,
While his horse moved, cropping the dark turf,
'Neath the starred and leafy sky;
For he suddenly smote on the door, even
Louder, and lifted his head:-
'Tell them I came, and no one answered,
That I kept my word,' he said.
Never the least stir made the listeners,
Though every word he spake
Fell echoing through the shadowiness of the still house
From the one man left awake:
Ay, they heard his foot upon the stirrup,
And the sound of iron on stone,
And how the silence surged softly backward,
When the plunging hoofs were gone.
+++
Is the "intellectually brave" and forthright way to interpret it the literal way as you say the fundagelical does? Or would it be best to treat it in some other way -- to "interpret" it? Please explain your answer.
Although I am not, I have been accused of being politically correct for some of my views. I have been called irrational, illogical, and superstitious. Christians aren't alone in this. Perfectly nice and kind atheists have been accused of having no morals because they have no religion and/or faith. I could go on with everyone but my post would be too long. 
