[No Trolls] Biblical Christianity

[DMDarcs]

I am not trying to start fights, nor change anyone's opinions about anything. Instead, I'm merely trying to gain an understanding.

Biblical Christianity. What is it?

I ask this, because the term came up in a discussion I was trying to have about a Trump-biased article stating that the Republican party was more aligned with "biblical Christianity". Is this really a thing? There are so many different interpretations about the Bible. There are so many different denominations/sects of Christianity, and I'm not just talking Catholic/Protestant. (Heck, there's 100+ divisions of the Baptist Church.) I'm assuming, based on the article, that "biblical Christianity" tends to be evangelical & conservative. I think there tends to be more of a literal translation of things. The article suggests that this would be anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage, but it doesn't seem to say anything about the sins of not staying kosher or wearing fabric of two different sources. Where is the line drawn -- i.e., what parts of the Old Testament are followed (I'm assuming Ten Commandments and the no-homosexual sections of Leviticus) and what parts aren't (slavery and polygamy are ok, rituals of purification for menstruating women, immediate death sentences for certain sins)? How do passages about "loving your neighbor as yourself" (I think Luke 10:27, Mark 12:31 or thereabouts) apply to immigration policy? I'm not up on Hebrews, but when Jesus claims that he is the new covenant, which parts of the old covenant get thrown out?

I know that these are not easy questions, and this is perhaps not the right place to be asking. We're not supposed to talk about politics and religion amongst polite company, right? Well, I'm socially awkward and not very aware of what's civil to talk about. I am sure I will offend, but I'm honestly not trying to.

Is Biblical Christianity a thing? Is it an abstract concept that happens to ally more closely with certain denominations (Wesleyan? Presbyterian?) and not with others? (Methodist? Anabaptist? Seventh-Day Adventists? Snake Handlers?)

Any thoughts would be much appreciated. But please, PLEASE, don't attack anyone's religious beliefs, whether they are people on the boards or not. Religion is, I know, a touchy subject and highly individualized in terms of beliefs, and we need to respect the beliefs of all. I am just looking to gain a deeper understanding.

[Zen]

I can tell you one thing... Presbyterians are generally on the less biblical side... Back when my parents were choosing a church to go to between the Presbyterian church she grew up going to, thanks to my Irish Catholic grandfather being excommunicated when he got a divorce prior to marrying my grandmother, and the Methodist church my father grew up in, my mom looked at the doctrine of the two churches and very technically, decided that she was much more of a sinner according to the Methodist church based upon doctrine, not that the church really followed that doctrine that closely, since for the most part, most Presbyterians don't really Presber and most Methodist don't really Methodize, so she chose to stay with the more forgiving Presbyterian church where fewer of her vices were deemed sins.

This is why Presbyterians are considered a "Liberal" church, despite the fact that most of the members would be considered conservatives if you met them in person.

Your resident former Presbyterian who was planning on going into the ministry prior to college... and completely losing his faith due to ... well, science and reason winning out in the long run...

Not sure which denominations are the "biblical" ones. Probably NOT the standard reformed ones other than Southern Baptist, though. For the most part, a lot of the "Free Methodist" or General "Bible Church" or "Church of God", as well as Pentecostal and Evangelical branches of the standard denominations are the ones that would be classified as "biblical". I would think.

[Mike]

I believe that in the sense that it was used, 'biblical Christianity' means a denomination that takes the Bible as literal truth, or at least is more likely to do so. Thus, the earth is 6,000 years old. People used to live for 800+ years. Typical science-denier stuff. Most mainstream faiths do not deny science (even if many of their members do), so this differentiates them. Also, taking the word of the Bible literally when choosing to interpret it as anti-gay (while skipping all the bits about shellfish and not wearing white after Labor Day). Since their are so many mainstream Christian religions who are taking the very un-Christian stance of love and tolerance and acceptance on these issues, being a 'Biblical Christian' is a good shorthand for 'homophobic'. You don't have to call yourself a biblical Christian to be homophobic, but if you DO call yourself one, then chances are pretty good that you are.

That's my uninformed armchair stance on the matter.

[Tahlvin]

I think this is one of those things where different people have different interpretations.

Some people interpret Biblical Christianity to mean Christian religions that use only the Bible as their religious text, as opposed to incorporating non-Biblical works into their core teachings. For example, the Catholic religion incorporates some works from Church Doctors (St. Augustine, for example), as well as encyclicals by the popes, into their beliefs. These usually don't supersede but rather expand upon the Bible. Other sects believe any such works are the work of man and not God, and thus not divinely inspired, and therefore not worthy of incorporation into the beliefs of the religion.

Certainly, the extreme wing of Biblical Christianity takes the Bible to be literal, so God really did create the world in 7 days, it is only 6,000 years old, etc., etc. But there are people who would be considered Biblical Christians (at least by the definition I use) who do not take such a literal interpretation of things.

[Mike]

I completely agree with you, Tahlvin. That's what people originally meant by 'biblical Christianity'--it was going back to the source material without all the mountains of dogma that some portions of Christianity have built up over centuries. But in the context Darcs was asking about--when brought up in a political context, the term has been co-opted as short hand for 'right-wing, religious conservative.'

It's similar in my mind to people who say, "I believe in the Constitution." In the modern political landscape, that phrase is shorthand for "I'm an extreme conservative," with a variety of implied political beliefs that go with that. Yeah, you know what? I believe in the Constitution too, but my interpretation and application of it just happens to be different from yours. Using the phrase "I believe in the Constitution" implies that there is only one way to interpret the Constitution of the United States of America, and anyone who doesn't agree with their views clearly doesn't believe in the Constitution and thus is un-American.

This parallels most uses of the phrase 'biblical Christianity' that I've seen. Whether or not it was intended by the people who invented that phrase, people I've talked to who belong to sects claiming to practice Biblical Christianity believe that other forms of Christianity are not based on the Bible and in fact will explain to me that Catholics and Baptists and Lutherans etc aren't actually Christian at all, because they don't follow the Bible. I find the term distasteful, because in spite of what I recognize as a perfectly legitimate origin to the phrase, the application of it has seemed to only engender division and exclusion and hate. This new political context for it doesn't make it any better.

[Mike]

By the way, once the conversation gets way out of hand, I imagine Darcs calling people out on it like a twelve-year-old in a backyard football game: "Dude! What the hell? I called 'No Trolls'!"

I think calling "No Trolls" should be a thing.

Or better yet, if someone posts something and forgets to call 'No Trolls', you're allowed to troll them, but then you immediately call 'No Troll-Backs' and now they're not allowed to disagree with you.

[Tahlvin]

[Bluedevyl]

I believe the term "biblical Christianity" is used as an argumentative crutch. Christianity, as a whole, is a mixed bag. I honestly believe that the term, at least as far as I've seen it employed here, is used to elevate one person's particular version of Christianity over others less rigid or more liberal interpretations. As far as a textbook definition, I've always heard of it in relation to the Protestant Reformation, which claimed that Scripture is the highest authority in all matters.

The people that I know who would refer to themselves as "biblical Christians" would claim, as others have said here, that the Bible is the written word of God, and, as such, carries with it an inherent authority that documents written by man simply cannot ever obtain.

It isn't possible, in my experience, to counter this argument. You can tell these people that the Bible was written by human beings, just like you and me, and they simply do not agree.

I found the article that you referenced really interesting, because it seemed, at least to me, to be rife with logical inconsistencies and circular logic. The entire thrust of the idea that Trump's platform is more biblical than Clinton's is one that I was curious to read, and then the author spends a lot of time explaining why Trump as a person is more biblical than Clinton, which I just don't think is defensible.

I do think that, with no offense intended in any way, an interesting conversation could be had regarding why its okay to ignore parts of the Bible or say they're not applicable any longer, but when we, as westerners, are shown parts of the Koran to support an argument designed to inspire fear in Islam, the same logic can not be applied.

[DMDarcs]

[Elle]

I have a number of such folks in my family and they claim (and I believe) they have carefully Bible-studied every word multiple times. I have asked about various "difficult" verses in a casual, offhand manner and the answers are completely baffling. Once a person who seemed to know what he was talking about schooled me in not using the term "cognitive dissonance", so maybe this is a stupid thing to say, but I am not sure how else to describe it except with "cognitive dissonance". Answers are given, and the answers DO NOT seem commensurable, and that incommensurability goes by completely unnoticed. I have no idea what ultimately explains this, but my guess at amateur psychology is that some things happened to make these people's lives feel way, way out of control in a negative sense, and they have regained control in part by using a particular take on religion, and it's working for them and making them feel good, so a gorilla could jump off the page during Bible study and they literally would not notice.

[bralbovsky]

"Biblical Christian" is used as a self description similarly to "Constitutional Constructionist." Unfortunately, as mentioned, it's more an argumentative crutch than realistic reference to actual text, or adherence to the logic (or lack of it) of that text. My brother-in-law calls himself a biblical christian (caps omitted purposely), which he believes entitles him to behave as he imagines old testament patriarchs behaved, and he views the new testament skeptically. His (and others) tendency to cherry-pick the passages that serve their logic while forgetting or ignoring those that don't is what makes their claims of legitimacy suspect.