Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ucsfcgl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!arnold
From: arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%UCB)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Christianity, sex (To Betsy)
Message-ID: <346@ucsfcgl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 17-Sep-84 19:56:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucsfcgl.346
Posted: Mon Sep 17 19:56:32 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 03:18:47 EDT
References: <258@uwmacc.UUCP>, <2377@dartvax.UUCP>, <3686@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: Computer Graphics Lab, San Francisco
Lines: 43

>> ...[material not relevant to the discussion I'm about to start, but
>  interesting nontheless]...

>Paul has been
>all little imprecise, maybe.  Perhaps he should have replaced the phrase
>"Christians recognize" with "biblical Christianity recognizes".  In our
>culture you really have to qualify the term "Christian".

And how are you going to distinguish between biblical and non-biblical
Christians?  Jehovah's Witnesses believe the bible is literal.  Their
interpretation of some of it may differ from yours.  Along the same
line, how about the Catholic theologists in Central America who believe
in actively helping the struggles of the peasants against oppression,
with some Marxist theory thrown in?  Are they biblical Christians?
While we're in the Catholic Church, there is the organization
"Catholics for Free Choice" who support abortion rights, at least for
others, and some of whom argue against the Church's teaching about
abortion.  The latter point out that nowhere in the Bible does it say
(in so many words) "a fetus is a human being".  So, it seems, one can
believe in both the Bible and abortion if one is a "biblical
Christian".  (It seems pointless to add that by this argument it is
also quite possible to believe in the Bible and believe that abortion
is murder, but if I don't say it, someone out there will think I mean
to exclude the possibility).

What I'm trying to point out is that "biblical Christian" is
essentially as broad a term as "Christian".  I know of no person who
calls him/herself a Christian who does not believe in the Bible.  But
they have different interpretations both of its literalness and its
meaning.  My grandparents (Congregationalists) believe the Bible is
essentially a series of parables and moral tales, often woven around
historical truth.  I know people who stopped speaking with me when they
found out my views differed from theirs because that made me "darkness"
and therefore to be avoided.  And in the broad (inclusive) spectrum in
between these people, I doubt anyone would accept the label "non-
biblical Christian".  So what is this dichotomy you propose?  I fear
you haven't solved any definition problems accept to state that there
is a subgroup of religious people you are willing to call "Christians",
but not "biblical Christians".  How is this different from someone who
says "They call themselves Christians, but they aren't really because
they don't follow the Word of God"?

		Ken Arnold