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